Is "People should be governed" a self-contradicting statement?

[crafn]

I got this idea recently, and don't recall hearing before, although it's probably not original. Here goes the reasoning.

 

"People should be governed"

 

A person stating this means that people should have something like government and laws, so the original statement translates to

"People should be controlled with violence."

 

The presenter is a person, so the previous implies

"I should be controlled with violence."

 

This directly implies

"A person subjected to violence can prefer the violence"

 

This is a contradiction, because by definition, violence is not preferred by the subject. Therefore the statement "People should be governed" is a contradiction in terms. Therefore taking the position "People should be governed" is irrational.

 

 

This is so simple, but immensely strong result, that I doubt it's true. Any ideas what could be wrong with the argument?

[Anuojat]

I think its true and makes sense. But always remember:

 

"Violance should be used againts me, i am a bad person. And so are you too." Is childhood formed self attack. This is not reason it is emotions (and trauma) masquearading as reason.

[Will Torbald]

 

I got this idea recently, and don't recall hearing before, although it's probably not original. Here goes the reasoning.

 

"People should be governed"

 

A person stating this means that people should have something like government and laws, so the original statement translates to

"People should be controlled with violence."

 

The presenter is a person, so the previous implies

"I should be controlled with violence."

 

This directly implies

"A person subjected to violence can prefer the violence"

 

This is a contradiction, because by definition, violence is not preferred by the subject. Therefore the statement "People should be governed" is a contradiction in terms. Therefore taking the position "People should be governed" is irrational.

 

 

This is so simple, but immensely strong result, that I doubt it's true. Any ideas what could be wrong with the argument?

 

 

You've never watched masochists? Violence in and of itself can be a preference. What you say can't be preffered is aggression, or the initiation of force, as it is defined tautologically by unwanted violence. A person saying "people should be governed" is also including himself within the reach of the law, as a politician is theoretically subject as well to the criminal justice system. The second statement of "People should be controlled with violence." includes the assumption that people can be controlled with violence, but also that violence is the most effective means of control. I don't think this is wrong, as it is quite effective, and until a more effective solution is found, it will remain the most chosen solution. I know about the ostrazism method, however, it is not as effective since sociopaths won't care, and they will group and form sociopathic societies of their own, or just become raiders and looters when they acquire enough numbers and strength. Second best, at least. So no, it's not self contradicting as long as you recognize violence is not unwanted by itself.

[dsayers]

The claim has no substance as saying people ought to do something without any context is meaningless. i.e. If you want to head north, you should turn left up here.

 

The prescription for people to be governed fails to infinite regression. Because who operate in the name of the State are people.

[EclecticIdealist]

"People should be governed"

Governed by what, whom, and in what manner?

 

People should be governed by reason.

People should be governed by principles.

People should be governed by morals.

 

A person stating this means that people should have something like government and laws, so the original statement translates to

"People should be controlled with violence."

That's simply poisoning the well. When people do not govern themselves through reason and morals, then they are being governed by emotion, sentiment, and initiating the use of force and deception. In short, they are engaging in immorality. When they have abandoned reason and morals, appealing to them with reason and morals will not work. One must meet force with force or succumb to it.

 

The presenter is a person, so the previous implies

"I should be controlled with violence."

 Again, only if they are asserting that they will not control themselves by reason and morals.

 

This directly implies

"A person subjected to violence can prefer the violence"

Of course they prefer violence (or deception). They choose it when they abdicate reason and morality.

 

This is a contradiction, because by definition, violence is not preferred by the subject. Therefore the statement "People should be governed" is a contradiction in terms. Therefore taking the position "People should be governed" is irrational.

 It is not a contradiction. Check your premises if you think it is. At least one of them will be false.

[crafn]

So no, it's not self contradicting as long as you recognize violence is not unwanted by itself.

 

My wording probably didn't match my intent too well. Let's fix that, and say the definition of violence includes some voluntary acts, like masochism. Then I'll change my wording from "violence" to "involuntary violence" or "coercion" or "the initiation of force", and the argument seems to hold. Correct?

 

 

The claim has no substance as saying people ought to do something without any context is meaningless. i.e. If you want to head north, you should turn left up here.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The point of the internal contradiction is that the statement "People should be governed" makes as much sense as "You should head north and south simultaneously", if the deduction is correct. Not specifying a moral context makes the argument stronger, because then it applies in every context.

[Will Torbald]

My wording probably didn't match my intent too well. Let's fix that, and say the definition of violence includes some voluntary acts, like masochism. Then I'll change my wording from "violence" to "involuntary violence" or "coercion" or "the initiation of force", and the argument seems to hold. Correct?

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The point of the internal contradiction is that the statement "People should be governed" makes as much sense as "You should head north and south simultaneously", if the deduction is correct. Not specifying a moral context makes the argument stronger, because then it applies in every context.

In that case, it also doesn't follow a self contradiction. To say "I wish to be coerced along with everyone else" means that whoever is governing is going to determine the path of the governed. It's to give up something of yours to someone hopefully more capable. For example, if a hundred people were against blood transfusions, and the lives of their children could be saved by a blood transfusion - would it follow that everyone else should go "ok, voluntarism lol" and let them kill their children? That happens, by the way, it's Jehova's Witnesses, and they nearly killed my grandmother once that way. The point is, coercion can be used when people are too deluded to the point of self and else destruction. If you prohibit collective coercion you will inevitably receive the consequences of collective stupidity.

[thebeardslastcall]

"People should be governed" is "I govern my kids" or "my parents governed me as a kid" and they don't want to face the emotional implications of challenging the statement. They say peoples' will should be overridden, but if you try to not override, but merely challenge, their conclusion with the counter conclusion they flip out and won't have it. Nor will they usually entertain any principled discussion of where this right to override someone's will comes from or under what conditions it might be acceptable. They need to keep this area as grey as possible and avoid clarity, because any clarity would inevitably put them on the wrong side of the fence, which they know and this is why they fight such challenges. It is only a contradiction in that they are using their free will to make an assertion their free will should be negated by another and then reject negation of their will. This basically boils down to "Having a king is fine, so long as I'm the king".

[crafn]

In that case, it also doesn't follow a self contradiction. To say "I wish to be coerced along with everyone else" means that whoever is governing is going to determine the path of the governed.

 

I'm addressing only this part of your post, because I don't see how the rest is connected to the logical argument.

 

"I wish to be coerced" is the self-contradiction in "People should be controlled with coersion." A subject of coersion can't prefer the coersion, because coersion is involuntary by definition. If e.g. the coercive act of theft is accepted by the subject, it's no longer theft, but charity. If this deduction falls apart I'll be glad to hear it, but it won't fall apart with further (unrelated) arguments, because justifications can't break logic.

 

 

... They need to keep this area as grey as possible and avoid clarity, because any clarity would inevitably put them on the wrong side of the fence, which they know and this is why they fight such challenges. ...

 

That's my experience too. I like these kind of short arguments which make little assumptions besides logic. Not having to explain UPB or show a bunch of evidence to debunk an argument is a nice thing.

[Will Torbald]

I'm addressing only this part of your post, because I don't see how the rest is connected to the logical argument.

 

"I wish to be coerced" is the self-contradiction in "People should be controlled with coersion." A subject of coersion can't prefer the coersion, because coersion is involuntary by definition. If e.g. the coercive act of theft is accepted by the subject, it's no longer theft, but charity. If this deduction falls apart I'll be glad to hear it, but it won't fall apart with further (unrelated) arguments, because justifications can't break logic.

 

 

You're not thinking 4-dimensionally, as in, over time. Your logic operates in absolute time freeze, where all events happen at once. No, that's not how the world operates. To say that I wish to be coerced by a governing body means that over time, I will relinquish my opinion for the opinion of some kind of power that will force me to comply - because I admit my limitations. If I were to, say, fall ill with a contagious virus, and I didn't know it - but they did, I would prefer if they put me in quarantine (in the future, hypothetically, from now) as soon as possible without even having to sign a concent form and expose more people to the danger. Same to my family, and my community. Sometimes coercion saves lives, and that's what "some kind of power should be allowed to override stupid decisions" means.

[crafn]

... Your logic operates in absolute time freeze, where all events happen at once...

 

No, the logic holds at all times, because it is independent of time. This means that preferences changing and events taking place, as in your example, are irrelevant to the logic. The claim you argued against is not part of my argument, so I won't to go further to your example.

[Will Torbald]

No, the logic holds at all times, because it is independent of time. This means that preferences changing and events taking place, as in your example, are irrelevant to the logic. The claim you argued against is not part of my argument, so I won't to go further to your example.

Nobody lives independent of time. If your logic doesn't apply within time, it is of no use in the real world.

[dsayers]

Nobody lives independent of time. If your logic doesn't apply within time, it is of no use in the real world.

2+2=4 is time independent. You've been one of the less creative trolls lately.