[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411511]So people should be allowed to leech of others ideas?[/QUOTE]
It's a shame if it happens, but it's more of a shame for everyone in a society to be violently coerced into giving up their labour. I don't think people's ideas would be leeched off much if there's no state, though. If we value originality, creativity, entrepreneurship, we have incentive to help people with originality, creativity and entrepreneurship more than someone who's just got at stealing ideas.
Having said that, it does nothing but impede progress if we don't let people's ideas get improved.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411525]No it isn't, violence is going in, punching the guy in his face and stealing his bank card, not taking him to court.[/QUOTE]
Restraining someone in handcuffs and throwing them into a prison cell isn't violence? If you want to be a statist you have to commit to the view that some violence is beneficial. You can't say there is no violence because that's an outright falsity.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411525]No it isn't, violence is going in, punching the guy in his face and stealing his bank card, not taking him to court.[/QUOTE]
if i would come over to your house and put a gun to your head, and say that if you didnt give me 50% of your income i will shoot you in the head, isn't that violence?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411550]It's a shame if it happens, but it's more of a shame for everyone in a society to be violently coerced into giving up their labour. I don't think people's ideas would be leeched off much if there's no state, though. If we value originality, creativity, entrepreneurship, we have incentive to help people with originality, creativity and entrepreneurship more than someone who's just got at stealing ideas.
Having said that, it does nothing but impede progress if we don't let people's ideas get improved.
[/QUOTE]
No it's more of a shame when companies can economically coerce people into doing what they want by withholding vital services unless you pay up.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kentz;36411566]if i would come over to your house and put a gun to your head, and say that if you didnt give me 50% of your income i will shoot you in the head, isn't that violence?[/QUOTE]
Except the state doesn't come to my house and put a gun to my head (unless you live in some dictatorship) so your point is void.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411570]Except the state doesn't come to my house and put a gun to my head (unless you live in some dictatorship) so your point is void.[/QUOTE]
But they do put you in cuffs and take away almost every one of your freedoms by locking you in a prison cell... I don't see much difference.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411583]But they do put you in cuffs and take away almost every one of your freedoms by locking you in a prison cell... I don't see much difference.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, that's kind of how law works unless you want a full on anarchist state where people can do whatever they want with no one to stop them.
And well theres a fairly big difference, with one being I'm threatened with death and in the other I'm put in a cell for a few years to hopefully ste me straight and stop being a stingy entitled prick.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411589]Well yes, that's kind of how law works unless you want a full on anarchist state where people can do whatever they want with no one to stop them.[/QUOTE]
yup
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411624]yup[/QUOTE]
Well I guess theres really no point in arguing with you if you're that morally bent.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411589]Well yes, that's kind of how law works unless you want a full on anarchist state where people can do whatever they want with no one to stop them.
And well theres a fairly big difference, with one being I'm threatened with death and in the other I'm put in a cell for a few years to hopefully ste me straight and stop being a stingy entitled prick.[/QUOTE]
laws can be immoral
[QUOTE=Kentz;36411682]laws can be immoral[/QUOTE]
Yes they can, however being taxed is not immoral, since the money they take goes to improving the country.
I mean the whole point of the social democratic idea of taxing people and handing out benefits and UHC is so you don't end up getting robbed by some guy who is desperately trying to get money to stay alive.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411667]Well I guess theres really no point in arguing with you if you're that morally bent.[/QUOTE]
Write me a sound argument, in premise+conclusion form, motivating the argument that the state is a force for the moral good.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411710]Yes they can, however being taxed is not immoral, since the money they take goes to improving the country.[/QUOTE]
doesnt matter where the money goes when the act of theft at gunpoint is immoral and always will be
plus, that money also goes to wars in other countries (at least if you live in countries such as the US)
I'd say the act of theft is, on such an enormous scale, more damaging to people's chances of fulfilment.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36411734]doesnt matter where the money goes when the act of theft at gunpoint is immoral and always will be
plus, that money also goes to wars in other countries (at least if you live in countries such as the US)[/QUOTE]
Yeah but things would be far worse and a lot more people would die if the state didn't take money and put it to helping those who need it.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411750]I'd say the act of theft is, on such an enormous scale, more damaging to people's chances of fulfilment.[/QUOTE]
No, I'd say leaving the poor to fend for themselves while the rich fuck them over is far worse.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411776]No, I'd say leaving the poor to fend for themselves while the rich fuck them over is far worse.[/QUOTE]
If there's no state, you'd only really be capable of becoming wealthy if you're providing the rest of society with something valuable enough for people to trade with you. The state allows people to earn money through threats, violence, bullying and deceit on an enormous scale. If everyone is rational, and there's no state, then your value to society and wealth will converge.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411821]If there's no state, you'd only really be capable of becoming wealthy if you're providing the rest of society with something valuable enough for people to trade with you. The state allows people to earn money through threats, violence, bullying and deceit on an enormous scale. If everyone is rational, and there's no state, then your value to society and wealth will converge.[/QUOTE]
Well no, since there would be no order people would still bully their way to wealth in whatever way they wanted, never mind the fact that if groups of companies decide to cooperate for mutual gain they could utterly bugger everyone and leave us with no choice in service. Also what happens to the disabled and others who can't work, since there would be no more benefits, what would happen to them? Are they just buggered now and left to die?
No. People are valuable. They have the capacity to produce valuable labour for everyone else. All of these wealthy companies are only wealthy in virtue of all of the people labouring for them. If there's no state, they can just get up and leave, then start a cooperative and work to [I]everyone's[/I] mutual gain. Sure, people could do whatever they want. But peaceful cooperation seems to be the most dominant strategy, as well as being very resistant to even large groups of nasty, uncooperative agents.
As for disabled people who have nothing valuable to trade with others, we'd have to rely on charity and people valuing people intrinsically, which I think plenty of people do. I don't share the view that human nature is weak, nasty, uncompassionate, etc. I think if let alone, people will really train themselves to be virtuous and rationally cooperate with each other, without threats of violence which damage your autonomy and therefore your chance at fulfilment.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411967]No. People are valuable. They have the capacity to produce valuable labour for everyone else. All of these wealthy companies are only wealthy in virtue of all of the people labouring for them. If there's no state, they can just get up and leave, then start a cooperative and work to [I]everyone's[/I] mutual gain. Sure, people could do whatever they want. But peaceful cooperation seems to be the most dominant strategy, as well as being very resistant to even large groups of nasty, uncooperative agents.
As for disabled people who have nothing valuable to trade with others, we'd have to rely on charity and people valuing people intrinsically, which I think plenty of people do. I don't share the view that human nature is weak, nasty, uncompassionate, etc. I think if let alone, people will really train themselves to be virtuous and rationally cooperate with each other, without threats of violence which damage your autonomy and therefore your chance at fulfilment.[/QUOTE]
"As for disabled people who have nothing valuable to trade with others, we'd have to rely on charity and people valuing people intrinsically, which I think plenty of people do"
But what if the funds from 'voluntary charity' won't be enough to save the lives of those with a life-threatening illness? Should they be allowed to die, because "government theft" as you call it is worse than millions of people dying due to a lack of proper health care?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411821]If everyone is rational, and there's no state-[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, both of those things are impossible. The human species as it is now, cannot exist without having at least one irrational person. Secondly, any society that depends on agriculture, is going to need a government of some form.
There is a lot of work that goes into running even the smallest of farming hamlets, and a hierarchy almost inevitably arises to help manage it.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36412058]"As for disabled people who have nothing valuable to trade with others, we'd have to rely on charity and people valuing people intrinsically, which I think plenty of people do"
But what if the funds from 'voluntary charity' won't be enough to save the lives of those with a life-threatening illness? Should they be allowed to die, because "government theft" as you call it is worse than millions of people dying due to a lack of proper health care?[/QUOTE]
I've already answered this exact question from you before... Yes; if the voluntary funds aren't enough to help people, then people don't value them. I do value them, so it's a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. But collectively, they don't believe the cause is worth it.
That is, in the scenario you outlined. I think it's unlikely that so many people will die from being so valueless, personally, because I think freedom from coercion will create people with more virtues, such a s charity.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36412085]Unfortunately, both of those things are impossible. The human species as it is now, cannot exist without having at least one irrational person. Secondly, any society that depends on agriculture, is going to need a government of some form.
There is a lot of work that goes into running even the smallest of farming hamlets, and a hierarchy almost inevitably arises to help manage it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think [I]everyone[/I] has to be rational, that was a mistake on my part. Exactly what the percentage has to be, I'm not sure, but I'd say it's somewhere around 50%. Irrationality would be so unprofitable that eventually people would learn through trial and error how they should rationally behave. As for the second point, I think you have a good objection here. Having said this, I think the hierarchies that are made are almost always built out of cultural hegemonic beliefs, such as the belief that the state has the monopoly of legitimate coercion, and isn't just the violent entity that beat all of the other violent entities.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412106]I've already answered this exact question from you before... Yes; if the voluntary funds aren't enough to help people, then people don't value them. I do value them, so it's a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. But collectively, they don't believe the cause is worth it.
That is, in the scenario you outlined. I think it's unlikely that so many people will die from being so valueless, personally, because I think freedom from coercion will create people with more virtues, such a s charity.[/QUOTE]
"I've already answered this exact question from you before... Yes; if the voluntary funds aren't enough to help people, then people don't value them. I do value them, so it's a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. But collectively, they don't believe the cause is worth it."
You see, "people" isn't a homogeneous entity. "People" can't have a homogeneous piece of information attached to them, without every single person in this group having such an information specification. Someone not having enough money from the charity to cure their life-threatening illness doesn't make them 'worthless'.
And virtues don't really matter - it's the result that does.
And you've mentioned that you want to spread your ideals by writing papers, and that there would be an intellectual revolution, etc. Are you serious about this? There are already enough writings on this stupid ideology, which are very well described. You writing a few more papers of such nonsense won't change anything at all.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411967]No. People are valuable. They have the capacity to produce valuable labour for everyone else. All of these wealthy companies are only wealthy in virtue of all of the people labouring for them. If there's no state, they can just get up and leave, then start a cooperative and work to [I]everyone's[/I] mutual gain. Sure, people could do whatever they want. But peaceful cooperation seems to be the most dominant strategy, as well as being very resistant to even large groups of nasty, uncooperative agents.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah but that's assuming they can find another job and assuming that other companies will have better pay rates.
Also you idea of everyone being rational is flawed due to the lack of proper education.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412106]I've already answered this exact question from you before... Yes; if the voluntary funds aren't enough to help people, then people don't value them. I do value them, so it's a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. But collectively, they don't believe the cause is worth it.
That is, in the scenario you outlined. I think it's unlikely that so many people will die from being so valueless, personally, because I think freedom from coercion will create people with more virtues, such a s charity.
[/QUOTE]
Actually a world without rules will likely just make people more opportunistic and look for every possible way to fuck each other over, especially with a lack of proper education to teach any cooperative morals.
Also the fact that you feel that a persons right to money is more than a persons right to life is sick, it really is.
I haven't decided if I want to specialise in political philosophy or not yet. I could easily say the same sorts of things about philosophers who write in favor of statism since I disagree with it, but I never would, because the only way you get any closer to the truth in philosophy is by an incessant antagonism between opposing points of view with the discussion of sound, logical arguments. But regardless, I don't necessarily want to be a philosophy lecturer because I want to change the world; it's just the sort of person I want to be.
And I wouldn't say I view 'people' as one homogeneous entity any more than you view people as 2 classes, rich and poor. I think each individual is so important that more or less the only thing that genuinely matters is their autonomy. I don't really see how I've homogenised people whatsoever. If I did it was likely just a turn of phrase suggesting it. How else are you supposed to talk about a group of people?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412304]I haven't decided if I want to specialise in political philosophy or not yet. I could easily say the same sorts of things about philosophers who write in favor of statism since I disagree with it, but I never would, because the only way you get any closer to the truth in philosophy is by an incessant antagonism between opposing points of view with the discussion of sound, logical arguments. But regardless, I don't necessarily want to be a philosophy lecturer because I want to change the world; it's just the sort of person I want to be.
And I wouldn't say I view 'people' as one homogeneous entity any more than you view people as 2 classes, rich and poor. I think each individual is so important that more or less the only thing that genuinely matters is their autonomy. I don't really see how I've homogenised people whatsoever. If I did it was likely just a turn of phrase suggesting it. How else are you supposed to talk about a group of people?[/QUOTE]
Someone already had this kind of idea, Ayn Rand I think her name was and I don't think she was very liked by most.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412304]I haven't decided if I want to specialise in political philosophy or not yet. I could easily say the same sorts of things about philosophers who write in favor of statism since I disagree with it, but I never would, because the only way you get any closer to the truth in philosophy is by an incessant antagonism between opposing points of view with the discussion of sound, logical arguments. But regardless, I don't necessarily want to be a philosophy lecturer because I want to change the world; it's just the sort of person I want to be.
And I wouldn't say I view 'people' as one homogeneous entity any more than you view people as 2 classes, rich and poor. I think each individual is so important that more or less the only thing that genuinely matters is their autonomy. I don't really see how I've homogenised people whatsoever. If I did it was likely just a turn of phrase suggesting it. How else are you supposed to talk about a group of people?[/QUOTE]
You aren't supposed to talk about a group of people as having an opinion, unless all of its members have the same opinion. If they have different opinions, statistics and opinion distributions have to be provided for the entire group. Otherwise, there's an information loss due to gross generalizations.
And the quantity of agents plus their material well being (which are the most deterministic factors for charity) doesn't determine if someone is valuable in any way.
Tell me this one thing. You said that physical coercion is only justified against physical coercion, as a form of self-defense.
What if someone did the following in your anarchistic society?:
1. Go to the Internet (lol, I doubt there would even be Internet in your anarchistic society in the long term)
2. Buy lots of credit card information, which usually sells for around $2
3. Buy themselves lots of, say, gold with these credit cards, worth of millions of dollars, and buy even more credit card info with the money they took from these credit cards
What would happen? Would they be stopped at all?
It's fallacious to assume that removing the government will also remove the good intentions from the majority in society. The reason these programs that help the poor like public schools, health assistance, etc, exist is because of the will of the majority for them to exist, we do live in a democracy after all.
If it is the will of the majority to offer these programs to help the poor, then all the government policies are is just a reflection of our desire to help the poor (otherwise it's not really democracy if the majority doesn't support it). It would make no difference whether there is a government or not, our intentions of helping the poor exist independent of the existence of the government. The majority of people would still care about the less well off as they do now, and there would still be charity, which would be done more efficiently and without the necessity of theft and coercion.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36412433]You aren't supposed to talk about a group of people as having an opinion, unless all of its members have the same opinion. If they have different opinions, statistics and opinion distributions have to be provided for the entire group. Otherwise, there's an information loss due to gross generalizations.
And the quantity of agents plus their material well being (which are the most deterministic factors for charity) doesn't determine if someone is valuable in any way.
Tell me this one thing. You said that physical coercion is only justified against physical coercion, as a form of self-defense.
What if someone did the following in your anarchistic society?:
1. Go to the Internet (lol, I doubt there would even be Internet in your anarchistic society in the long term)
2. Buy lots of credit card information, which usually sells for around $2
3. Buy themselves lots of, say, gold with these credit cards, worth of millions of dollars, and buy even more credit card info with the money they took from these credit cards
What would happen? Would they be stopped at all?[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean, but I'm merely saying that collectively, society holds this belief that the state holds the monopoly of legitimate coercion. This is to say that even though some people don't believe it, so many people do that it's not really viable for them to act on their belief because there's so many who do.
But alas, I don't think I have the patience to argue about this for a while. The discussion feels quite stale and I need a break.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
Having said that I agree with absolutely everything Noble says. He seems to be saying what I'm thinking but a great deal more eloquently and concisely.
[QUOTE=Noble;36412459]It's fallacious to assume that removing the government will also remove the good intentions from the majority in society. The reason these programs that help the poor like public schools, health assistance, etc, exist is because of the will of the majority for them to exist, we do live in a democracy after all.
If it is the will of the majority to offer these programs to help the poor, then all the government policies are is just a reflection of our desire to help the poor (otherwise it's not really democracy if the majority doesn't support it). It would make no difference whether there is a government or not, our intentions of helping the poor exist independent of the existence of the government. The majority of people would still care about the less well off as they do now, and there would still be charity, which would be done more efficiently and without the necessity of theft and coercion.[/QUOTE]
The government is the institution the people operate through, without it we'd have to rely on unregulated organisations to do it, who could just make a charity and pocket a large chunk of the charity money and virtually no one would know.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36412536]The government is the institution the people operate through, without it we'd have to rely on unregulated organisations to do it, who could just make a charity and pocket a large chunk of the charity money and virtually no one would know.[/QUOTE]
Then you could just not donate to any organization who refuses independent auditing
[QUOTE=GenPol;36412433]You aren't supposed to talk about a group of people as having an opinion, unless all of its members have the same opinion. If they have different opinions, statistics and opinion distributions have to be provided for the entire group. Otherwise, there's an information loss due to gross generalizations.
And the quantity of agents plus their material well being (which are the most deterministic factors for charity) doesn't determine if someone is valuable in any way.
Tell me this one thing. You said that physical coercion is only justified against physical coercion, as a form of self-defense.
What if someone did the following in your anarchistic society?:
1. Go to the Internet (lol, I doubt there would even be Internet in your anarchistic society in the long term)
2. Buy lots of credit card information, which usually sells for around $2
3. Buy themselves lots of, say, gold with these credit cards, worth of millions of dollars, and buy even more credit card info with the money they took from these credit cards
What would happen? Would they be stopped at all?[/QUOTE]
Never heard of a credit card chargeback?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36412390]Someone already had this kind of idea, Ayn Rand I think her name was and I don't think she was very liked by most.[/QUOTE]
I quite like Ayn Rand as a reaction to conventional morality. I think that's one thing we need a lot more of; people questioning beliefs that are honestly taken for granted, if they're even correct in the first place.
Having said that, the effect of her philosophy on society has been fucking disastrous, partly because she portrays herself as a cranky, hateful bitch (quite possibly was one, but I think this is exaggerated). I think most of her American followers absolutely betray the good elements of her philosophy because the sort of industrialism they adopt is hugely reliant on coercion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.