Societies with Little Coercion Have Little Mental Illness

[brucethecollie]

A statist I've been talking to about things (she is open to learning and discourse) sent me this article.  She said she was trying to research the effects of a coercive society in trying to understand some of my points.  

 

Anyway, I thought it was worth sharing:  http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/08/societies-little-coercion-little-mental-illness/

[dsayers]

She said she was trying to research the effects of a coercive society in trying to understand some of my points.

 

Not knowing the specifics of your discussions, this seems dishonest to me. Studying the effects of something is a utilitarian approach. It can be helpful to know for information's sake, but it has no bearing on determining right from wrong. In my mind, it's not even a question. Anybody who engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder is TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by using their property (body, time effort) to deny their victim use of their property.

 

Most people who reject this do so because they're afraid of the responsibility, they're afraid of what their friends and family might think, and/or they're afraid of things they'll have to use. All of which are utilitarian in approach, which is why I think it's important we stay focused on the moral argument. It is paramount after all. Skipping over the moral argument is like having a conversation with somebody on the premise that some humans can fly. It's simply not an accurate description of reality. Just like saying violence is a valid solution to a problem is not an accurate description of reality because it's internally inconsistent.

 

Never forget that there is only one thing we can achieve with violence that we cannot achieve without violence: violence.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not knowing the specifics of your discussions, this seems dishonest to me. Studying the effects of something is a utilitarian approach. It can be helpful to know for information's sake, but it has no bearing on determining right from wrong. In my mind, it's not even a question. Anybody who engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder is TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by using their property (body, time effort) to deny their victim use of their property.

 

Most people who reject this do so because they're afraid of the responsibility, they're afraid of what their friends and family might think, and/or they're afraid of things they'll have to use. All of which are utilitarian in approach, which is why I think it's important we stay focused on the moral argument. It is paramount after all. Skipping over the moral argument is like having a conversation with somebody on the premise that some humans can fly. It's simply not an accurate description of reality. Just like saying violence is a valid solution to a problem is not an accurate description of reality because it's internally inconsistent.

 

Never forget that there is only one thing we can achieve with violence that we cannot achieve without violence: violence.

 

Can we achieve NAWAPA without violence?

[Donnadogsoth]

Thanks for sharing this damning article, brucethecollie.

[dsayers]

Can we achieve NAWAPA without violence?

 

Are you asking if it's possible to get people to do things they want to do without pointing a gun to their head?

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you asking if it's possible to get people to do things they want to do without pointing a gun to their head?

 

I'm asking if megaprojects are psychologically possible without a nation-state as a rallying point.  It could be that without that leadership, people will mill about like ants until they dehydrate in the sun.

[Will Torbald]

I'm asking if megaprojects are psychologically possible without a nation-state as a rallying point.  It could be that without that leadership, people will mill about like ants until they dehydrate in the sun.

 

If people want something, they'll do it. If people don't want NAWAPA voluntarily, with win-win negotiations between communities, and they can find other solutions - they just won't. It still doesn't mean people will die if the nanny state doesn't spoon feed them.

[dsayers]

It could be that without that leadership, people will mill about like ants until they dehydrate in the sun.

 

I reject your claim that a hungry person would starve unless somebody pointed a gun at them. The fact that you and I exist is proof of a VERY long time of people seeking food and water out of biological necessity.

 

Even if your claim were true, it fails to infinite regression. How do the people pointing the guns get the water to survive long enough to point guns at people if people would die rather than seek water unless a gun is pointed at them?

 

I mean, if you're going to try and refute that violence is the only thing we could achieve with violence that we couldn't achieve without violence, at least cite something optional like roads. Food, water, and shelter we have millenia of empirical evidence to the contrary.

[Donnadogsoth]

It could be peer pressure will take the place of "violence".  If 99,999,999 people want NAWAPA, and 1 person occupying a key piece of real estate doesn't, how much "non-violent" peer pressure will be brought to bear on that 1 person to get them to sell?

[Will Torbald]

It could be peer pressure will take the place of "violence".  If 99,999,999 people want NAWAPA, and 1 person occupying a key piece of real estate doesn't, how much "non-violent" peer pressure will be brought to bear on that 1 person to get them to sell?

 

Just build around that one house, it's not that difficult.

[Donnadogsoth]

Or that one house is by a fluke of the market sitting on 400,000 acres of crucial real estate that can't be built around because it contains a river that will be diverted.

[Will Torbald]

Or that one house is by a fluke of the market sitting on 400,000 acres of crucial real estate that can't be built around because it contains a river that will be diverted.

 

We could keep moving the goalposts all day. But what if and what if and what if and what if? I don't know. When it comes to a real problem in the real world where I can contribute I'll think about it.

[Mister Mister]

It could be peer pressure will take the place of "violence".  If 99,999,999 people want NAWAPA, and 1 person occupying a key piece of real estate doesn't, how much "non-violent" peer pressure will be brought to bear on that 1 person to get them to sell?

  If I understand, this argument is, if 99.99% of people have been persuaded of this great idea (which, atm, most people haven't heard of), but .0001% of people are not persuaded, and the idea cannot be implemented without violating their property rights, then don't we NEEEED to use force against them for the greater good?

 

Before arguing for force, you have yet to persuade people that this is a good idea to begin with.  Which seems like a big job ahead of you.  Of course it's a lot easier to force people than to persuade them.  I think it's very interesting though, that rather than trying to convince people in general this is a good idea, you are asking a bunch of Ancaps on the internet if they would betray their core principles in a hypothetical future scenario.

[dsayers]

It could be peer pressure will take the place of "violence".  If 99,999,999 people want NAWAPA, and 1 person occupying a key piece of real estate doesn't, how much "non-violent" peer pressure will be brought to bear on that 1 person to get them to sell?

 

So what you're saying is that you're going to believe what you want to believe even in the face of data to the contrary. This is bigotry. You're saying that violence is acceptable as long as YOU agree with what it will be used for. This is an unprincipled conclusion and cannot be universalized.

 

I urge others not to bother convincing him. His behavior thus far indicates that if you were to convince him, he'd just bring up the next reason to not accept that he owns himself AND others own themselves also. Moving the goalposts as it were.

[Donnadogsoth]

  If I understand, this argument is, if 99.99% of people have been persuaded of this great idea (which, atm, most people haven't heard of), but .0001% of people are not persuaded, and the idea cannot be implemented without violating their property rights, then don't we NEEEED to use force against them for the greater good?

 

Before arguing for force, you have yet to persuade people that this is a good idea to begin with.  Which seems like a big job ahead of you.  Of course it's a lot easier to force people than to persuade them.  I think it's very interesting though, that rather than trying to convince people in general this is a good idea, you are asking a bunch of Ancaps on the internet if they would betray their core principles in a hypothetical future scenario.

 

I'm not arguing for force, I'm arguing that peer pressure would have the same effect as force, and would morally be no different.  If that one person is in the way, he's going to be cut off from essential services and benign social interaction by those who want to pressure him to sell his land.  To presuppose that one man could stand against the needs of the many, is presuming we are angels.

So what you're saying is that you're going to believe what you want to believe even in the face of data to the contrary. This is bigotry. You're saying that violence is acceptable as long as YOU agree with what it will be used for. This is an unprincipled conclusion and cannot be universalized.

 

I urge others not to bother convincing him. His behavior thus far indicates that if you were to convince him, he'd just bring up the next reason to not accept that he owns himself AND others own themselves also. Moving the goalposts as it were.

 

I have a measured judgement in favour of humanity.

 

I wish you would recognise that peer pressure would have the same effect as "violence".  Including your attempt at blackballing me in these forums because I have pointed out an uncomfortable truth.

[dsayers]

I have a measured judgement in favour of humanity.

 

Promoting violence against humans is the opposite of being in favor of humanity.

 

I wish you would recognise that peer pressure would have the same effect as "violence".

 

Violence is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights and therefore invalid. Whether there's an alternative or not won't change this.

 

Now that the moral argument is out of the way, I have pointed out a few times right here that there is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. From that, how do you get that I do not accept the power of ostracism? By insisting I'm wrong because of (example), it is you who are rejecting the power of ostracism.

 

I have pointed out an uncomfortable truth.

 

I've just demonstrated how you've actually spoken in the exact opposite of the truth. I continue to demonstrate that I accept reality. So I can't even think of what "uncomfortable truth" would look like in the context of my comfort.

 

Oh and I wasn't trying to black ball you. People ask about debating tactics all the time and seeing that you're willing to move the goalposts (and now resort to polar lies) means there will likely be no convincing you. I was trying to save others time. The only reason I'm investing the time is because I spent decades subscribing to narrative and only a couple years thinking rationally. So I like the practice with spotting internal inconsistencies.

[Mister Mister]

I'm not arguing for force, I'm arguing that peer pressure would have the same effect as force, and would morally be no different.

 

I wish you would recognise that peer pressure would have the same effect as "violence".

  

  Ahh, but it is morally different.  Morality is based on universal principles, not effects.  Assisted suicide has the same effect as murder.  Boxing has the same effect as assault.  Charity has the same effect as theft.  Peer pressure is morally no different than force?  Do you really expect to be able to assert something like that here without being called out or questioned on it.  I think dsayers is right, I'm done.  Thanks for the dialogue.

[Will Torbald]

I'm not arguing for force, I'm arguing that peer pressure would have the same effect as force, and would morally be no different.  If that one person is in the way, he's going to be cut off from essential services and benign social interaction by those who want to pressure him to sell his land.  To presuppose that one man could stand against the needs of the many, is presuming we are angels.

 

I have a measured judgement in favour of humanity.

 

I wish you would recognise that peer pressure would have the same effect as "violence".  Including your attempt at blackballing me in these forums because I have pointed out an uncomfortable truth.

 

The problem with violence is not what effect it has. That is called consequentialism, when you judge things by their consequences. We reject the validity of that system, and focus on first principles of rationality. If ostracism is just as effective as violence, but has no immoral qualities to it, then it is righteous to use ostracism instead of violence even if they are equally powerful. Ostracism could even be more powerful than violence, and it would still be advocated as a method of non aggressive peer pressure.

[Donnadogsoth]

Promoting violence against humans is the opposite of being in favor of humanity.

 

 

Violence is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights and therefore invalid. Whether there's an alternative or not won't change this.

 

Now that the moral argument is out of the way, I have pointed out a few times right here that there is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. From that, how do you get that I do not accept the power of ostracism? By insisting I'm wrong because of (example), it is you who are rejecting the power of ostracism.

 

 

I've just demonstrated how you've actually spoken in the exact opposite of the truth. I continue to demonstrate that I accept reality. So I can't even think of what "uncomfortable truth" would look like in the context of my comfort.

 

Oh and I wasn't trying to black ball you. People ask about debating tactics all the time and seeing that you're willing to move the goalposts (and now resort to polar lies) means there will likely be no convincing you. I was trying to save others time. The only reason I'm investing the time is because I spent decades subscribing to narrative and only a couple years thinking rationally. So I like the practice with spotting internal inconsistencies.

 

Will you or will you not say that using peer pressure (denial of trade, ostracisation) to cause someone to conform to the group is immoral?

 

Peer pressure is an enormous force.  It can cause you to marry someone you don't want to marry, it can cause you to donate all your wealth to a given group.  What control is there on its effects, in principle?

The problem with violence is not what effect it has. That is called consequentialism, when you judge things by their consequences. We reject the validity of that system, and focus on first principles of rationality. If ostracism is just as effective as violence, but has no immoral qualities to it, then it is righteous to use ostracism instead of violence even if they are equally powerful. Ostracism could even be more powerful than violence, and it would still be advocated as a method of non aggressive peer pressure.

 

Suppose everyone minus one chose to enter into a binding, irreversible agreement call "the state".  Would you agree peer pressure is righteous in causing that one holdout to enter into the contract?

[Will Torbald]

Suppose everyone minus one chose to enter into a binding, irreversible agreement call "the state".  Would you agree peer pressure is righteous in causing that one holdout to enter into the contract?

 

Yes, it would be righteous. Luckily, I know people aren't that monumentally mentally impaired to agree to such agreement in the real world.

[Donnadogsoth]

In the real world most people already agree to the social contract just referenced, not doing anything to oppose it.

 

On the NAWAPA example:  How is cutting someone's utilities and access to food off and causing them severe psychic pain through ostracisation better than simply bodily picking them up and moving them off their land to make way for a canal?  Both involve irresistible forces, unless the man is Superman and doesn't need to eat.

[dsayers]

Will you or will you not say that using peer pressure (denial of trade, ostracisation) to cause someone to conform to the group is immoral?

 

I asked you how you got what you think I said from what I said. Since you refuse to answer, my answer to this question is no, I will not repeat myself. You can read what is written and try to engage in a conversation once you have things like an open mind and curiosity.

 

Peer pressure is an enormous force.

 

Then why do you reject that violence is the only thing we can accomplish with violence that we cannot accomplish without violence? Which has been your position from the moment I pointed it out, as seen here:

 

How is cutting someone's utilities and access to food off and causing them severe psychic pain through ostracisation better than simply bodily picking them up and moving them off their land to make way for a canal?

 

You're asking how initiating the use of force differs from not initiating the use of force. Choosing not to sell you a loaf of bread is different from taking your loaf of bread. If you say to me that I HAVE to sell you the loaf of bread because you have to eat to survive, you are inflicting an unchosen positive obligation on me, which is unethical in proposition and immoral in practice. You are free to make your own loaf of bread. If you want bread that others have, you will have to exchange value for value with them. If you offer then a penny or a smile, they may ask for more as is their prerogative. They might ask you for $1,000 or a car, you can ask for less as is your prerogative. As long as both parties are free to decline, there is nothing binding upon the other without their consent, and therefore no immorality.

[Donnadogsoth]

I asked you how you got what you think I said from what I said. Since you refuse to answer, my answer to this question is no, I will not repeat myself. You can read what is written and try to engage in a conversation once you have things like an open mind and curiosity.

 

 

Then why do you reject that violence is the only thing we can accomplish with violence that we cannot accomplish without violence? Which has been your position from the moment I pointed it out, as seen here:

 

 

You're asking how initiating the use of force differs from not initiating the use of force. Choosing not to sell you a loaf of bread is different from taking your loaf of bread. If you say to me that I HAVE to sell you the loaf of bread because you have to eat to survive, you are inflicting an unchosen positive obligation on me, which is unethical in proposition and immoral in practice. You are free to make your own loaf of bread. If you want bread that others have, you will have to exchange value for value with them. If you offer then a penny or a smile, they may ask for more as is their prerogative. They might ask you for $1,000 or a car, you can ask for less as is your prerogative. As long as both parties are free to decline, there is nothing binding upon the other without their consent, and therefore no immorality.

 

Since you don't see what I'm talking about with economics, how about sociology:  A woman is nine months pregnant.  Everyone around her tells her to kill the child, to the point of starving her by cutting off her access to trade, and she starves.  How is that starvation not force?  Of course it's force.  It's an act of omission.  They're killing her!  And you here are all telling me that's not force, that that's righteousness (as Will Torbald put it), that that's perfectly okay so long as no one uses a gun.  So we have a dead woman, a dead unborn child, and a society full of "righteousness."

 

Fortunately, we live in a society based on a social contract that is refreshed and altered periodically by an electorate, and which is implicitly operating in terms of the good of the species, specifically in terms of the fostering and development of the human individual as the indivisible, sovereign unit of creativity capable of acting for the benefit of the species as a whole.  The NAP makes no reference to this concept, instead presuming that "the crowd" will swing this way and that like an out-of-control washing machine, crushing whomever it pleases for any moral or immoral reason whatsoever and having its pleasure labelled legitimate so long as it doesn't use force by commission.  This is a kind of populism that will lead to economic and moral disaster, with the kinds of scenarios I've given.

[dsayers]

Since you don't see what I'm talking about with economics, how about sociology

 

No. No dancing around. Either you accept the consistency in property rights being valid or you do not. Entertaining utilitarian arguments is you saying you're okay with violence as long as it's used in the way you would like or can pretend to justify (which cannot be universalized). I've pointed this out already and you haven't addressed it.

[Donnadogsoth]

No. No dancing around. Either you accept the consistency in property rights being valid or you do not. Entertaining utilitarian arguments is you saying you're okay with violence as long as it's used in the way you would like or can pretend to justify (which cannot be universalized). I've pointed this out already and you haven't addressed it.

 

I don't buy narcissistic populism, which is what you're selling:  "vox populi est vox Dei".  There are higher moral concerns than the individual's autonomy.  If these higher concerns are articulated and constitutionalised then we have a defense against the mere crowd's will, which you hold is the highest good.

[dsayers]

Common fallacy. Humans are not fundamentally different when they stand next to each other. People exist, but crowd is a concept. You cannot have a crowd without people. Therefore you cannot claim good for the crowd if it violates the property rights of a person. Gang rape is an example of a crowd's will. And according to you, and acceptable standard for determining right and wrong.

 

You're just saying that you reject what I've put forth. You're not actually articulating why.

[Donnadogsoth]

Common fallacy. Humans are not fundamentally different when they stand next to each other. People exist, but crowd is a concept. You cannot have a crowd without people. Therefore you cannot claim good for the crowd if it violates the property rights of a person. Gang rape is an example of a crowd's will. And according to you, and acceptable standard for determining right and wrong.

 

You're just saying that you reject what I've put forth. You're not actually articulating why.

 

Wrong.  Creative reason determines what is right or wrong.  It's the basis for all such determinations.  It is the crowd, unprincipled except for the NAP, which is capable of peer pressuring a woman into submitting to gang sexual intercourse, and it is yourself who will have no principled objection to it, since it is occurring in accordance with the sacrosanct NAP.

[shirgall]

Wrong.  Creative reason determines what is right or wrong.  It's the basis for all such determinations.  It is the crowd, unprincipled except for the NAP, which is capable of peer pressuring a woman into submitting to gang sexual intercourse, and it is yourself who will have no principled objection to it, since it is occurring in accordance with the sacrosanct NAP.

 

Please define "creative reason" as this is unclear to me. Creative, in context, seems to be "having the capability to create" and "reason" is "the ability to understand, infer, deduce, or explain." But, taken negatively, it could be, in combination, the power or ability to make excuses for anything... which is the key attribute of religion and the religious.

 

Are you saying that only the religious (in this context NAP-religious) have the ability to cook up reasons that come across as moral to excuse any action?

 

In a world assailed by lifeboat problems, it may come across as the NAP-obsessed being able to excuse anything, but the NAP is not the only objective moral rule.

[Donnadogsoth]

Creative reason as the ability to make revolutionary changes in technological and social practice through the discovery, transmission, and assimilation of universal physical principles.  For example, the principle of universal gravitation, Fermat's least-time principle of light, and so on.  These things allow us to increase our technological practice and thereby increase our power over Nature (e.g. by using our knowledge of gravity to mount a successful Lunar exploration mission, with massive economic returns).

 

It's this principle, the principle of creative reason, that is the basis for all morality, as all morals revolve around the good of creative reason, of the entities possessed of such reasoning power.  This is the basis for education, for social interaction, for art, for religion, for everything.  Anything outside of its purview is morally irrelevant.

[shirgall]

Creative reason as the ability to make revolutionary changes in technological and social practice through the discovery, transmission, and assimilation of universal physical principles.

 

We had a perfectly good word for that already, "engineering." Engineering is applied science. As someone who has "productized" ideas for over three decades, I'm somewhat familiar with it.

[dsayers]

Wrong.

 

Show me, don't tell me. I've made the case for objective morality. Show me where it doesn't accurately describe the real world. Show me how somebody engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder aren't TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by accepting property rights for themselves and rejecting it for others. Show me how something can be valid and invalid simultaneously. Show me how you can have a crowd without people.

 

I wasn't wrong. You just don't want to accept reality because it interferes with your bigotry.

[Donnadogsoth]

We had a perfectly good word for that already, "engineering." Engineering is applied science. As someone who has "productized" ideas for over three decades, I'm somewhat familiar with it.

 

Was Kepler an engineer?

[shirgall]

Was Kepler an engineer?

 

Yes, his telescope inventiveness was just part of his story: http://www.visionlaunch.com/johannes-kepler-inventions-and-accomplishments/

[Donnadogsoth]

Show me, don't tell me. I've made the case for objective morality. Show me where it doesn't accurately describe the real world. Show me how somebody engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder aren't TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by accepting property rights for themselves and rejecting it for others. Show me how something can be valid and invalid simultaneously. Show me how you can have a crowd without people.

 

I wasn't wrong. You just don't want to accept reality because it interferes with your bigotry.

 

I don't accept your vox populi, for reasons already given.

[AncapFTW]

Wrong.  Creative reason determines what is right or wrong.  It's the basis for all such determinations.  It is the crowd, unprincipled except for the NAP, which is capable of peer pressuring a woman into submitting to gang sexual intercourse, and it is yourself who will have no principled objection to it, since it is occurring in accordance with the sacrosanct NAP.

So, their highest principle is NAP, yet they would support someone violating NAP?  A group that sees personal freedom as sacrosanct would support someone violating that personal freedom for no better reason than "they wanted to"?  I know you see NAP as a religion, but people who follow it try not to pick and choose what it does and doesn't apply to, as that would invalidate the whole thing.