Principles and Predictions

in statism •  8 years ago 

People who have embraced voluntaryism usually do so based on logical, philosophical and moral grounds, and their arguments reflect that. Statists, however, almost never base their arguments on such things. Instead, they almost always “argue” via fear-mongering and dire predictions. To put it another way, voluntaryists argue from principles and statists respond with predictions. For example, I’ve seen many hundreds of variations of this:

Anarchist: “People can’t delegate rights they don’t have, so government can’t be legitimate.
Statist: “But if we didn’t have government there would be violent chaos!

Note that the “response” is not actually a response at all to the original statement. It is an unrelated assertion, analogous to this:

Santa Claus isn’t real.
But without Santa Claus a lot of children wouldn’t get presents!

Of course, Santa won’t magically materialize for the sake of worthy children, making such a response irrelevant and logically ridiculous. Likewise, dire predictions about what would happen without “government” can’t magically make it possible for people to delegate rights they don’t have. Statists don't even try to argue otherwise, but instead just dodge the point entirely and respond based on fear, because the idea of a stateless society doesn’t fit within their familiar paradigm.

Unfortunately, anarchists often take the bait and allow statists to change the subject, moving on to argue about how society could work without a ruling class, like someone explaining how children could get Christmas presents even without Santa Claus. This is precisely what the statist hopes for, since making wild guesses and baseless predictions is a lot easier and a lot less existentially disturbing than pondering actual philosophical concepts.

It’s important to note that in most cases, such a reaction from a statist is not because he is intentionally being dishonest, or is consciously trying to change the subject. It is simply the result of him reflexively avoiding ideas that make him uncomfortable. However, that is why it is especially important for voluntaryists to not allow themselves to be dragged off topic.

Having debated literally thousands of statists over the last twenty years, I personally find that even the most basic question about morality, logic or principles often needs to be asked half a dozen times—or more—before a statist will respond in any sort of relevant way. Quite literally, their subconscious is desperately trying to avoid even hearing or comprehending what any voluntaryist is actually asking, because deep down inside they know that they have no substantive rebuttal, and that puts their entire view of reality at risk.

WITHOUT GOVERNMENT WE WOULD ALL BE KILLING AND EATING EACH OTHER!!!

One method of response is to keep the discussion on point while allowing the statists to hang onto their psychological “security blankets,” by accepting their dire predictions for the sake of argument. For example: “Okay, assuming we would all be violent animals without government—so obviously let’s not try that—can you nonetheless tell me whether people can delegate to others rights that the people didn’t have to begin with?”

But be warned, the extent some people will go to in order to avoid facing their own cognitive dissonance can be downright scary. You may find yourself asking the same simple, basic, perfectly clear question a dozen times, only to have the statist predict the end of the world, and then insult you, and then complain about the question, and then voice all sorts of fears, and then condemn you, and then say he already answered the question, and then wish for horrible things to happen to you, and so on.

No, I am not exaggerating at all. I can’t even count how many times over the past two decades I’ve gone through that with statists. In case you aren't yet familiar with the profound mental contortions that the belief in “authority” naturally leads to, I will leave you with an exercise that involves practicing patience, practicing staying on topic, studying human psychology, and fully understanding the insanity of statism. My challenge to you is this—pick your favorite statist, and see if you can get him to provide direct, specific answers to the following questions:

1 - Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2 - Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3 - Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4 - When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5 - When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

Don’t set your sights too high. Don’t bother even hoping for rational or consistent answers. That’s asking too much. Just see if you can get on-point answers at all, no matter how irrational or bizarre. If you can get a direct answer from a statist to even one of those questions, congratulations! Even that is not an easy task. If you get two or three, outstanding! If you get four actual answers, you deserve a medal! And if you get a direct answer to all five, you will have achieved a miracle!

(P.S. If you ask a voluntaryist those questions, they won't dodge, evade, obfuscate, complain and have tantrums. They will probably just say, “No, no, no , yes, and no, in that order.” Because being intellectually honest, and being morally and logically consistent, is really not all that difficult once you've given up the belief in “authority.”)

(P.P.S. After you’ve tried to get straight answers from a statist, take a moment to ponder how weird it is that it would be this difficult just to get people to state the specifics of their own position. That will give you some idea of the depth, power and insanity of the authoritarian indoctrination that infects most people’s minds.)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Great reading! I'm not a statist but I'll try to play devil's advocate.

Don't you think we could state (it's still a simplification, but bear with me) that our moral judgements are based on both principles (deontological ethics) and consequences (consequentialism)? Maybe we determine good and bad through a heuristic process that takes into account both systems, making the answer "but it will be bad" not incompatible with logical claims.

Trolleyology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is filled with examples where we cannot reasonably articulate the reasons why we make certain judgment calls. Maybe statists do need consequential arguments and anarchists are right to fall in their traps.

You know what Yogi Berra would say:“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Obfuscation. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. It's really that simple!

The trolley problem is a bullshit trap. The person who COULD intervene did nothing to set up the scenario (and the scenario never occurs anyways). The person responsible is the person who ties people to the tracks and sends a trolley after them. Nobody else. Same as if person A points a gun at person B, what person B does is the responsibility of person A.

Maybe we determine good and bad through a heuristic process that takes into account both systems, making the answer "but it will be bad" not incompatible with logical claims.

Possibly, but ideally in that case, if you asked someone a straightforward question like:

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Then they would respond by saying something like:

No, there is no way that someone can delegate a right that they do not have, if I am to be entirely consistent. Nevertheless, the consequences are so severe, that we must take this position, even though it's obviously illogical.

And we could go from there. Unfortunately, what normally happens is a negative emotional reaction which makes communication very difficult.

I think your idea about using deontological ethics and consequentialism at different and appropriate times probably deserves a lot of consideration. I suppose in some ways, that is what comes naturally to people.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Thanks to the OP and to isacvale for your reply. It was interesting to look up and read through the Wikipedia of the Trolley Problem

While the problem is well known and has been debated at length for many years it's actually a very simple thought experiment that is used to justify doing something distasteful or evil.

Let me explain,

Voting IS the trolley problem on a massive scale. People are convinced that they must choose between two negative outcomes and if they don't choose and the worst outcome occurs then they are at fault for not choosing (voting).

This problem can be and has been modified many ways but is always about forcing you to choose.

The correct answer is, whether your actions are evil or good is determined by how you justify your actions not by the question.

I can and will justify my refusal to pull the lever (vote). You may be convinced that I'm allowing 5 people to die, I'm convinced that only fools who trust Government to protect them would stand on the track.

Thanks for refreshing my memory of this time honored argument.


Wait Saturnalia Claus isn't real? If he isn't real how is the NSA spying on all of us? -#Lulz

@larkenrose

I think you are missing a point here. Morality of a group is something subjective. You assume that violence cannot be moral. Well, it can be. It depends on how you define it.

The reason you cannot debate properly with statists is for the same reason you post your version of the Spock up there and I am posting my version of the Spock down here (without saying that I agree with the statement).

I do agree with your philosophy, I adhere to anarchic and capitalistic principles myself, but your approach will come off as ignorant because you assume that ethics is something universal. Ethics are shaped by the environment. What is ethical for you is not for another. What was "moral" 200 years ago, its not today.

In the future don't be suprised some future nerds caling us "statists of the blockchain" because we allowed being sheep in Steemit while the whales had all of the wealth, deciding what content will be displayed.

This simply is not true. Everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance AND rejection of property rights. It is objectively true that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. There you go! Objective morality explained in four words.

It is objectively true that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

It doesn't pertain to morality but...

The figure below is concave.

Image source 'Buddhism Plain and Simple' by Steve Hagen

Ask yourself if the statement above is valid, invalid, or both?

Exactly. I agree with most of @larkenrose’s assertions but it is important to remember that ’right’ and ’wrong’ are both human constructs. Taking clear cut positions on issues of incredible complexity often means that you are not considering all variables. Is government bad? Is government good? I think the true answer is both.

Thanks @larkenrose for pushing your agenda as the world is much better when people speak their minds; however, I must ask if this is the tone you take when debating statists? If so I would consider adjusting your tactics as it may come across as condescending, thus any debate is likely to be a pointless endeavor.

The consistency of matter and energy are not human constructs. When you steal, assault, rape, or murder, you are saying "property rights are valid for me and invalid for you." This cannot be universalized and this internal inconsistency is objectively determined.

Government is predicated on the idea that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is false and therefore the initiation of the use of force to act in the name of the State.

@@ -1,67 +1,5 @@
-The consistency of matter and energy are not human constructs.
+%3E
When
@@ -197,11 +197,165 @@
ined
-.
+%0A%0Aofcourse it can. they can say that they need it to feed their group instead of yours. Also. all these things happens whether a goverment exists or not.
%0A%0A
+%3E
Gove
@@ -452,101 +452,441 @@
ries
-. This is false and therefore the initiation of the use of force to act in the name of the State
+%0A%0AActually that's a the law of nature. Morality is subjective. what is moral for you is not for someone else. You consider it moral to have a girlfriend and masturbate on a porn side. some others don't. same applies about human life for some. Humans simply do not share the same values. %0A%0AYou are reaching wrong conclusions saying %22therefore%22 does not take you anywhere. avoid using %22anarchic%22 mantra. it's easy to catch your foot in it
.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Moral relativism is satanism. There is an objective right and wrong. You are not god of the physical domain and allowed to determine what is right and wrong. If you crush someones skull in that is an objective wrong. You have stolen property that doesn't belong to you. And you will suffer the consequences via natural law.

  1. No, I don't assume that violence can never be moral. 2) No, the importance of the question does not depend upon everyone having the same view of morality. REGARDLESS of someone's moral code, or what it is based on, the concept of an external "authority" (such as "government") is inherently insane.

except NOBODY assumed violence could not be moral. I think you are projecting your own asumptions about morality onto others.

the problem is, humans in general are not fully rational beings, and that is why some "irrationality" like authority is necessary in the practical societal life.

If humans are irrational, then what race is this authority coming from?

"humans in general are not fully rational beings" - so we should pick the worst of these irrational people and let them violently control us. That sounds a lot less practical than just letting people be.

“WITHOUT GOVERNMENT WE WOULD ALL BE KILLING AND EATING EACH OTHER!!!” But with governments too we are doing so, we are killing and eating each others, true and live examples are in Iraq,Syria,Kashmir(Indian occupied), Palestine, Afghanistan etc. what you cal the government please define it. And thanks to share very informative current affair post.

Government is a monopoly of force over a geographical region. You are a Government yourself as you own your body and the effects of your actions. We call this self-Government and all other forms of Governments are composed of this. State Government (federal, provincial, state, municiple, etc) is a bunch of individuals who claim to own all the people in their arbitrary area of control. Sadly, no two disagreeing governments can occupy the same space. It is the reason why you are never taught in school about your own self Government, because operating under your own natural moral code is against the rules of whatever dictator is in charge.

All of those places you listed have governments.

Anarchist: “People can’t delegate rights they don’t have, so government can’t be legitimate.”
Statist: “But if we didn’t have government there would be violent chaos!”

Note that the “response” is not actually a response at all to the original statement. It is an unrelated assertion, analogous to this:

“Santa Claus isn’t real.”
“But without Santa Claus a lot of children wouldn’t get presents!”

Except that government is real, and government does keep order. So this analog is only valid if there were a real santa clause, who really brought presents... in which case children actually would no longer receive presents after you axed Santa.

Furthermore, as for delegating rights you don't have, I have the right to self-defense correct? If a person is, for example, driving drunk that is a threat to me so stopping them could be considered self-defense. Therefore if I delegate that responsibility to police, I'm actually delegating a right I do have.

Care to try again?

1 - The people are real, the buildings are real, the guns are real, the "authority" (the RIGHT TO RULE) is not, without which it doesn't fit the definition of "government."

2 - If "government" could only do what you have the right to do, it wouldn't be "government." Care to try again?

1 - The people are real, the buildings are real, the guns are real, the "authority" (the RIGHT TO RULE) is not, without which it doesn't fit the definition of "government."

Are you saying government does not exist? Or are you saying government keeps order regardless of your particular definition of authority? If it's the former, you don't need to argue anything because you have anarchy. If it's the latter, then authority doesn't matter because groups of representatives chosen by voters are keeping order. Either way your analogy is pure BS because you're comparing the removal of something nonexistent to the removal of something which exists.

2 - If "government" could only do what you have the right to do, it wouldn't be "government." Care to try again?

Care to ask a question that makes sense? I delegated my authority to protect myself using force in my example. You might want to actually respond to that, instead of doing what you accuse "statists" of.

"I delegated my authority to protect myself using force in my example."

You can delegate the right to defense to other agencies. You can even group together with others and delegate your right to defense as a group.

However you have no right to steal. Nor does anyone in your group. So you cannot delegate the right to steal to your agency. You can have all the delegate defense you want, provided you pay for it without theft.

You also do not have the right to force others to join your group. So therefore you cannot delegate to your agency a right to force others to join. Therefore your agency cannot enforce itself as a monopoly on defense.

Which is what the question is really about.

Complaining about the question. Yep, that's on the list.

Putting any form of valid criticism "on the list" does not make it invalid. Even if I say you're right that I can't delegate rights I don't have, you need to prove I've delegated rights I don't have... Which you have not done because you are Begging the Question.

Telos just hears what he wants to hear. Government exists the same way Santa Claus exists. I think the mistake is saying that Santa Claus isn't real, he is real in the minds of children and some people aren't ready to hear otherwise.

Nice post though, I for one enjoyed the Santa Claus analogy

@jeza I think there's some confusion there with your answer. It seems to me that belief in something cannot be the qualifier for its existence. Santa Claus does not exist simply because the minds of children think he exists. The ability of some omnipresent being to bring gifts around the world simultaneously one day a year does not manifest simply because some people believe that it will. The only thing that can happen as a result of a belief in something is the actions of the believers. Everyone who has thought about it understands that the purpose of the Santa Claus myth is to convince children that they should behave in certain ways, and they will be rewarded or punished by the god, but their behavior is a product of their own thoughts only. Their behavior is not a product of the actions of Santa Claus.
Government is essentially the same thing. Government doesn't do anything, individuals do the things. Individuals may be acting on the assumption that the mythical entity, government, exists, but government is not acting upon the world any more than Santa Claus is.
Now in answer to what @telos was saying, the reason we don't have anarchy is not because government actually exists, but because people believe it does. People act and allow others to act based on that belief only. If the belief stops, the behavior stops, and therefore government is a myth. But as long as most people believe in the myth, rulers have real power, and therein lies the problem with achieving an anarchic society.

By the way, feel free to absolutely stun me by actually answering the question: "Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?"

It's a delusion to think I'll stun anyone, but I'll give it a shot. Imagine a free society where person A wants to do something but fears it might hurt person B. Is it moral for him to do it without consulting B?

Extrapolating on that, the exchange of information between individuals allow them to take actions that would be immoral to individuals alone, either because they are unsure of the outcomes or not completely confident on the principles behind the action.

Not a bad shot, but I'll explain how you miss the mark...

We can concretize your scenario fairly easily: let's say person A is hungry and person B has an apple. Person A would like to eat the apple. If person A simply eats the apple, then it is an act of theft and is immoral. But if A asks B if he can eat the apple, and B consents, then it is no longer theft.

The difference between whether the act is moral or immoral is consent. (You could substitute lots of stuff in the scenario, by the way, including sex and even death.) So the exchange of information is required not to make an immoral act a moral one, but to determine whether the act itself is moral or immoral.

If B says "no, that's my apple and I want to eat it myself", then for A to eat it would be immoral. A cannot delegate to person C the right to take the apple without B's consent, because A didn't have the moral right to do that in the first place.

The question itself doesn't pertain to a right like self-defense. It pertains primarily to taxes and regulations. Since you have no right to steal, you can't delegate to someone the right to steal on your behalf.

But your response does a great job of honing in on the difference between moral and immoral acts: consent. The exchange of information is necessary to establish consent and therefore the morality of given actions.

And in case anyone wants to walk down the road of ethics in emergencies, there are scenarios where consent can be obtained after the fact. Like pushing someone out of the way of a speeding bus -- an act which is rescue with consent, but assault without it.

You're a wordsmith -followed

Thanks for a great answer! But I'll try a second punch, if you don't mind.

Somewhere on this forum I argued that maybe we make judgment calls based on both principles (deontological ethics) and consequences (consequentialism). I know the author is concerned with principles alone, but our brain probably weighs the two, in ways I don't claim to know, to get to an answer of right or wrong.

That said, I throw in the towel on deontological grounds. There is no way to delegate a moral right that you don't have. (Well, unless it was thought in advance that the collective had the moral right to act, but that is another discussion.)

But in terms of consequentialism, things change. It might not be moral for one person to act because he feels he cannot adequately predict the consequences. But if enough people join in, their prediction might be good enough for them to act.

I'll illustrate. Imagine your neighbor's wacky religion makes him treat his kid in a way you disapprove. Questions about his freedom of religion against his kid's rights will pop up on your head and you might find the problem too tough. You might then default to not intervene. (After all, maybe the kid can survive without a blood transfusion.)

A solution to this problem lies in asking for help from the community, so the issue is assessed by more people and more solutions arise. This is not exactly delegating a moral right you don't have - it's more like consolidating a moral imperative - but its end result is the same: the collective may morally act when the individual can't.

I'd just point out the the same principle acts in reverse, in what's called diffusion of responsability. In this phenomenon, people don't act because they believe it is society's responsibility to act. The existence of such a phenomenon is a hint that sometimes it might be moral for the collective to act, even if no individual could.

Moral right? Who decides these morals? What do you think I don't have the right to do? You ignored my question earlier, why do you think I don't have the right to protect myself? Or if you do, why do you think I can't delegate that right?

Natural rights. Behaviours which can be universally shared between all individuals. For example: Murder, theft, assault, and rape are all examples of property violations which we can not prefer for ourselves.

You do have a right to protect yourself, if that drunken driver was gunning straight for you then yes you can make a case for either yourself or another individual to shoot the driver in defense. However you made no claims of where the driver was heading, just that he was drunk. It doesn't matter whether there's a man in a blue costume or not, do YOU in that scenario have the right to shoot/stop the driver, and can you make a case for your defense upon doing so.

"...are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered?"

In order for it to be murder, the person must refuse consent. If the person consents to be deprived of life, that's assisted suicide. The denial of consent is built in to the definition of the action.

Natural rights. Behaviours which can be universally shared between all individuals. For example: Murder, theft, assault, and rape are all examples of property violations which we can not prefer for ourselves.

What do you mean by "behaviors which can be universally shared?" That is, are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered? If so, isn't that essentially a mandate due to popular opinion?

By the way do you realize that in certain cultures people considered being sacrificed to be an honor? And in other cultures there is no concept of ownership at all, so property rights and the right not to be killed are, in fact, not universal. These things are derived from majority consensus in our culture, in exactly the same way government authority is.

What do you mean by "behaviors which can be universally shared?"

That these behaviors can be practiced by everyone simultaneously without contradiction. Not that they ARE, but that they CAN BE without inconsistency.

"Who decides these morals" is begging the question. It presumes that morality is subjective. If it were, it would be meaningless, as you attempt to point out. So instead of using that as a reason to accept the theft, assault, rape, and murder of human beings in the name of the State, perhaps instead use it as motivation to learn whether or not morality even IS subjective.

It is objectively true that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally consistent. The person engaging in these acts is using their property to deprive another of their property. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that their action is wrong.

"Who decides these morals" is begging the question. It presumes that morality is subjective.

I'd actually argue he's begging the question. He's claimed we don't have the moral right to delegate things he claims we don't have the moral right to do. Circular reasoning at it's finest. No wonder no one can effectively argue his question, it's logical garbage at the outset!

It is objectively true that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally consistent.

I have no idea what you mean by that. As best I can tell you've just stated the equivalent of 2 = 2.

The person engaging in these acts is using their property to deprive another of their property. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that their action is wrong.

Tell that to a culture which doesn't even believe in property. You're making huge assumptions based on... what, exactly? Why do you believe your property is yours? A few thousand years ago your "property" could actually have been a kings.

So you claim morality is objective, and we're supposed to believe that government is immoral because of your specific moral claims... but you haven't shown that morality is objective, nor that your specific moral claims are objectively correct.

answering telos
The morals are decided by what is logically consistent. If you decide murder is moral then you are saying that another person can exert his will upon (kill you) you but you can't exert your will upon him (not be killed) (assuming you want to live, if you don't, then it isn't murder, it's assisted suicide). So it's logically inconsistent, like saying 2=3, which we all know to be false simply my empirical facts.
The case for property rights is this: you own yourself (if you need logical proof on this go search it, I just assumed it as true). When you are born you aren't born into slavery. No one can take your arm, eat it, and you'll be ok with it. So by owning yourself you can do whatever you want to do with your time, as long as it isn't causing harm to anyone (you aren't murdering anyone, raping anyone, etc). So if you decide to spend 8 hours to get money and then you buy property with that money, no one should be able to steal any part of that property or the money you worked for, unless you consent to that (social contract doesn't involve consent).
A culture without personal property would be sustainable only insofar as it would be moral, ie the people would have to CONSENT to give their property away. So if I work for 8h and you work for 4h I would have to freely give my 2h of work to you (in the form of currency or food or whatever). But this, as you know, has too many ways to go wrong... that's why communism doesn't work.

So there, I just proved morality is objective despite cultural beliefs (which aren't logical - if you are going to use tribes to base your arguments remember that we used to burn witches, commit infanticide, etc. the only logical argument that can be sustained is that an immoral action (murder) can become moral once you have consent (murder -> euthanasia, rape -> sex, theft -> giving stuff, violence -> martial arts, etc...)

How can you use self defense against someone who 'MIGHT' somehow hurt you? Until that drunk person ACTUALLY harms you, you have no claim of self defense.

So you can only defend yourself after you've been hurt or killed?

If nothing has been done to you how can you claim 'self defense'? I 'thought' that person over there was too drunk for his own good, therefore I am afraid he 'MIGHT' do something that 'MAY' harm me, therefore I have the right to use violence against him. Unless you're a pre-cog from Minority Report, I don't think you have the right to use violence against someone until they actually do harm.

I'm not implying anything. I'm trying to get you to realize that we often have the right to defend ourselves from someone who is putting us in harms way, and putting others in harms way as well. Pointing a gun at your head by no means makes it certain the gunman will pull the trigger, it just drastically raises the chance of it happening. So you're trying to live in this grey area where you narrow down the point at which you can defend yourself on various criteria, while failing to realize that this is exactly what laws do.

Drunk driving is illegal because it substantially raises the possibility of killing another person. Pointing a gun at someone is illegal for the same reason. Laws aren't there just to randomly mess with you, they are there to protect others from y our actions regardless of whether they are intentional harm or not.

For instance, a man might own a factory in another state and therefore be willing to reduce costs by not controlling pollution. Everyone in the vicinity of the factory gets sick, some people die, etc... but no one had a chance to defend themselves, and the factory owner didn't intend for people to die. He just wanted cheaper manufacturing.

So can you defend yourself against a person callously spewing harmful gasses into the air because it hurts people? If I can defend myself against that, then can't I delegate that to other people? And if so, why can't delegate a requirement to prevent people from getting sick and dying? Especially one that results in everyone getting to continue on as before... that is the manufacturer can still have a factory, the people can still have non-poisoned air and no one has lost their property or their lives.

That is why we have laws and government. And why it is justified. Any just law is by proxy a defense of other people from harm.

So if someone points a gun at your head you do nothing until they pull the trigger. I guess you should actually wait until the bullet hits you, because if he misses "no harm done." Sorry, but I guess we're done here. You're well beyond any reasonable definition of self-defense.

You're implying the drunk driver has 'intent' to do you harm. I can't be certain, but I would guess MOST people who drink and drive do so with the aim to NOT hit anyone or do harm to anyone, as that would effect them as well. Where as with your example, someone aiming a gun at my head is a 'direct threat' against my well being. Therefore I would have the right to get the gun out of my face using whatever methods I saw fit.

If you can make a case for why you yourself would or should stop the driver then that's all that you need. If you won't stop the driver when you are perfectly able to do so, then why does it suddenly become acceptable for a man in a blue costume to do it in your stead?

replying to telos

  1. people have their judgement clouded when using alcohol. They confuse distances, their reaction time is impaired, they may have halluciations, etc.
  2. people are irrational to the point where they may not be conscious of their own impairment
  3. If people are unconscious of the wrongs they may cause by driving, you have the right to stop the imminent disaster, because you will use violence to stop potential harm

Take this analogy
Someone puts a mentally retarded person in a room with 100 switches and 1 of those switches sends a nuclear bomb to a random country. This mentally retarded person doesn't know this and he doesn't know what the switches are for.
Do you not use force to get the person away from the room, if you know indeed that one of those switches poses a threat?

New dilemma: there is a person guarding the room and that person has be instructed to stop any intruders. You have to use force upon that person if he does not move. You have to use force if there are 2,3,4,5 security guys.

Of course this is the trolley problem. You did not put the mentally retarded person in the room with the switches. But to be moral you have to act morally despite the circunstances. So if that means breaking the NAP to prevent violence then yes, you should.

Now all this being said, you have to make the case that robbing everyone in the country to pay for the police when the police themselves do immoral actions without justification (like jailing people for non violent crimes) is itself moral. Which it isn't.
So if you are going to go through the consequentialism route instead of the moral objetivity route then be prepared to justify every possible consequence of an action, not just 5 lives are better than 1 (even this can be discussed as you could be killing Einstein instead of Hitler, Mussolini, etc).

So what is justified self defence? Like you said, you really don't need the bullet to be lodged in your brain for you to be able to act with violence in self defence. I guess fines are a good way to keep people from driving drunk, but otherwise I'm stumped.

The question is why can I delegate something that I don't have the right to do. If I have the right to stop the drunk driver, the answer to the question is that I do I have the right to do the things I'm delegating.

Why does it become acceptable? Because if delegation of something you have the right do is unacceptable, pretty much everything breaks down. That is, Satya Nadella needs to stop hiring people to write software and do it all himself.

A drunk driver does not pose an immediate threat to you unless they are headed toward you with their car. Stopping them would only be self-defence​ if they were about to hit you. I'm not supporting drunk driving but, if someone makes the decision to drive drunk and makes it home without incident, there was no harm done. The real problem is they may not have the mental ability to make the right decision because of the alcohol and should be stopped because of that, with no penalty. Just send them home safely. Not beca​use they "may" hurt somebody. Fining someone and sending them to prison because they were using the only drug they were allowed to use is just hypocritical. Especially, if that drug takes away your ability to make proper decisions.

A drunk driver does not pose an immediate threat to you unless they are headed toward you with their car. Stopping them would only be self-defence​ if they were about to hit you.

Again, you're claiming you can only use self-defense when it's already too late (e.g. a car's careening towards you.) This is analogous to having someone point a gun at your head, but you don't do anything defend yourself until after he's pulled the trigger. After all if he's just pointing a gun at you and then doesn't pull the trigger no harm was done.

Not the same thing. If someone points a gun at you, they are threatening your life directly. Someone driving drunk two streets over does not pose an immediate threat to your life.

Am I allowed to protect anyone else in your world? For instance if I see someone pointing a gun at the back of someone else's head?

ran out of replies so i'll reply to this one. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Am I allowed to protect anyone else in your world? For instance if I see someone pointing a gun at the back of someone else's head?
Of course you are. And, you should try and stop someone that is driving drunk. But you don't have the right to imprison or fine them for doing so. How can you give that right to a cop?

Why don't I have the right to imprison someone who's about to shoot another person in the head? What do I have the right to do? Kill them to prevent a murder? Beat them up? Shout a useless warning?

Furthermore, why are you deciding what rights I have in terms of defending myself or others in the first place?

@telos , I already said drunk driving is not the same as pointing a gun at someone's head. I said you don't have the right to imprison someone for drunk driving. If you think you do, go "arrest" a drunk driver yourself and lock him up in your basement. See how far that gets you.

I agree with everything you've said, up until the very end here. No drug takes away a person's ability to make proper decisions. Also, the person CHOSE to take that drug, so they would still be responsible for their behavior even if their reaction time and inhibitions were... inhibited.

No drug takes away a person's ability to make proper decisions.

Actually most illicit drugs do exactly that... Which is why you should plan responsibly ahead of time.

Sure, a drunk persons ability to make the right choice is affected. They may know it's still wrong but might just say "Fuck it" and do it anyway. That is the alcohol affecting you. Yes they would still be responsible if someone dies. But, if they make it home safe with no incident, what is the harm? They made a choice and, although not the right one, didn't cause harm to anyone.
Drunk driving is a problem for sure but a cop should just be getting that person home safe if they get caught. Imprisoning them is not the solution. Maybe making taxis and uber more available instead of banning them would help too.

Logic? What Logic? Morals and principles? Statist can't be statist without embracing moral relativism and being an empiricist . So sad really, but they are being persuaded in higher numbers every day! Thanks to people like you.

Larken, did you write those 5 questions? Or are those Questions that Jan came up with? I actually hope I get the answer to that, because I am working on an article right now about blue privilege that uses those questions.

Keep up the great work man, and I cant' wait until the Mirror drops!

They are my questions--though I'm sure countless people have come up with their own wordings of pretty much the same thing. But I don't "own" them, so do whatever you want with them, with or without mentioning me.

Right on! You Da Man!

Before the Iraq war, there was a series of programs in place like universal health care, retirement, public schools, free higher education, etc. They weren't perfect by any means, but after everything was dismantled, there was a total plan of libertarianism imposed with the thought that free enterprise and liberty would take hold. What resulted was a disenfranchised population that turned to ISIS.

1 - That was a perfect example of completely dodging the point, and bringing up assertions about outcomes.

2 - To use Iraq as an example of how great authoritarianism domination is is rather bizarre.

3 - To claim that the military invasion of Iraq is an example of libertarianism is just looney.

It wasn't the invasion that was an example of libertarianism, it was the tearing down of working social programs and leaving the country to fend for themselves. The Bush Administration used that whole war, and the events afterward as some kind of loony experiment in non-government. With no employment opportunities, education, health care, or security, the population latched hold of whatever appeased their frustration. In this case it was ISIS.

I see a lot of points in your article. The line: “WITHOUT GOVERNMENT WE WOULD ALL BE KILLING AND EATING EACH OTHER!!!” is what caught my attention mostly. Without government, the people of Iraq are killing and eating each other.

And again, you just did EXACTLY what the article describes, so I guess I should thank you for making my point. You make dire predictions about what life without a ruling class would be (in this case based on hallucinated "facts"), instead of saying anything about the actual principles.

Yeah, this makes you not really worth talking to: "The Bush Administration used that whole war, and the events afterward as some kind of loony experiment in non-government."

sorry vegascomic, islam is a both a government and a religion. you say there is not government. Isis believes it is following the quran which is government.

So what you're saying is that you have no idea what Islam and the Quran are? Got it!

ISIS wants to create a government based on their view of Islam. If Islam was a government they wouldn't have needed to do anything!

Islamic control was what resulted after their government was dismantled. It's not a good thing. If you advocate for the elimination of government, then you should have a plan for afterward. Bad shit is apt to happen, and usually does. Iraq is merely an example we can all use for when it's actually pulled off. Saddam Hussein knew full well what these crazy fuckers were capable of, probably why he ruled them an iron fist.

That's why you don't dismantle the government wholesale. If the people that depended on government still cling to the delusional belief in authority, they'll cling to whoever offers it. Another reason why your claim that Iraq is some sort of demonstration of what happens sans government is absurd. Not to mention that the US put in place a government immediately after overthrowing Hussein.

lolol this is like watching liberals say completely confirming the thesis of of Jonah Goldberg's Book "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" by using cliches and pretending that they don't have any ideology.

You might want to go about this by proving the thesis of the article wrong by actually addressing the thesis of the article.

Thank you Sir/Madam for your input ....

"The extent some people will go to in order to avoid facing their own cognitive dissonance can be downright scary." True. Also, when they catch a whiff of this dissonance and panic in response, they tend to flail about and resort to all sorts of self-defeating behaviors. This is especially true during family gatherings. :)

Just as they're about to contradict their own beliefs they suddenly don't have the time and energy to debate with you anymore. But atleast it's a small sign that you made them uncomfortable with their flawed presumptions of govt.

Larken: whatever happened with the two hundred or so people you sent the five question test and a copy of your book to? Did any more respond or agree to a follow up debate?

I'm looking forward to your response to Statists here as I do on Facebook. :)

I still have more questions to send, follow-ups to do, etc. So far we got ONE actual response from a statist.

http://government-on-trial.com/images/pdf/deMarneffePDF.pdf

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

The answer to the third part of (2) is that if a law is morally justifiable (according to the correct theory of morality, whatever it is), and it is adopted through the proper political process, and this law gives someone a legal right to do something, and it is morally permissible for someone to do this thing that he is legally entitled to do, then he has the right in virtue of these moral and legal facts.

Haha... It's great how people can write this stuff and stay so straight.

"So... where did the people who manage the political process get the moral right to change what is legally and therefore morally permissible?"
"They got it like... from the dollar store."

my guess is that he was completely ignored and received no response.

I'm enjoying your posts Larken. One thought in response to this:

It’s important to note that in most cases, such a reaction from a statist is not because he is intentionally being dishonest, or is consciously trying to change the subject. It is simply the result of him reflexively avoiding ideas that make him uncomfortable.

I'm a big fan of the principle of charity. While this description may be true in many cases (maybe in all), it's not necessarily so. It is possible that the statist, in response to your questioning, has internally accepted the proposition that political authority, and what it does, is morally illegitimate - but has not articulated this acceptance to you.

They instead have moved on and are talking about something else: Perhaps political authority is immoral, but the absence of it would give rise to greater suffering and injustice. Consequentialist statism (based on appeal to ignorance).

I do agree with you that it's important to get explicit acknowledgement about the fundamentals though, and keep asking if you're not getting it. I'm very familiar with this pattern from the responses to George Ought to Help. The most common comment on that youtube page is me asking "In which of the situations shown in the video, if any, does it become acceptable to threaten violence against your former friend?". Most critics fail to answer.

...and on the Santa Claus front... I don't know about you, but this creation doesn't seem to lift a finger. Parents and elder siblings put forth some effort to see this Santa Claus event happen, if that is their desire and it can be cute and entertaining for the older people and the younger people that are still enveloped within the story.

Yet if Santa Claus were not to be around. Would that mean the parent's and elder siblings' arms and legs are suddenly broken. Are they only fueled by the power of myth? I simply say the answer is no. The gift giving and wonder and excitement could happen with or without a Santa Claus. It is about people. People do the work, people make their own decisions.

Governments serve no purposes except perhaps for those that are so wealthy and powerful that they sit beyond the reach of the government and simply suck in the rewards the government racket funnels their way.

Fuckin A!

sadly, this is true of most people on most topics nowadays. People are just not comfortable giving direct answers to question, and if you demand answers, they will come close to biting your head off. .

The flip side is when a legit answer is given but the questioner doesn't recognize it.

true, this indeed occurs as well, though Not nearly as much as t he opposite.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

About linkback bot. Please upvote if you like the bot and want to support its development.

Excellent one, Larken. Sharing. :-)

I am going a little bit away from the conflict topic of what you described in your post. I asked myself if governments are an emergent structure. I would assume that human mankind started out without a government in place. You could assume that they were very close to somehow an anarchistic society. There must have been a tipping point when they have established their first government structures.
Now with the virtual technologies in place we are actually in a position to test it out some point in time. I could imagine an anorcho blockchain based community on the internet where people start out with the same amount of rights or non-rights and the same amount of resources. I wonder what will happen and how they go about to optimize their access to the resoures within this virtual anorcho world. Just a thought...
@steempowerwhale
upvoting your lifetime dreams!

Excellent article Larken. I found it enlightening, biting and funny. I can go about my business today with a smile.

People are crazy.

yeah..they are. I find evidence to support that statement all the time. The question is why? The answer is "Dunbar's Number", Tribes and inherent wetware.

Nothing can be done other than finding ways to live with the situation. The internet, virtual reality, and cryptocurrency seem to be a good plan.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Hi,

My comment is quite long so I placed it into a separate post
https://steemit.com/statism/@mgaft1/response-to-principles-and-predictions-larkenrose

In short.. your principles are absolutely right logically. Only they could never be applied to our spicies.

Cheers

I've found the tip toeing around simple questions to be soo frustrating. Its a challenge with speaking to family and close friends that aren't logically consistent with their stance and its hard to break the indoctrination but I try to remember its a process. Planting seeds of doubt in their authoritarianism belief structure is worth trying though. Those questions are like weapons of mass awakening and increases effectiveness with the proper strategy . Reading this really reminds me how fucking nuts statism is.

@larkenrose I would add debating racism is almost the same as debating a statist. Same reaction usually I get called a child like something at first but I continue asking "what does skin color have to do with anything in a world of individuals?"

And they normally (machine like response) always avoid the word "individual" as much as possible!

Love your stuff Larken Cheers

It is always a good idea to have your list of fallacies ready when "arguing" with a statist. All they are really doing, in my experience, is transmitting all the bullshit they were fed by their parents and other authority figures, to comply with the powers that be. It is attack attack attack, to shut up any rational argument.