Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, May 16, 2008 23:02
VIEWED: 10901
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:24 AM

I actually said it half tongue in cheek, it's one of those different frame of reference things I was talking about.

Still it raises an interesting question. If someone does garnish your wages and you DO shoot them who gets to decide if that was appropriate or not if the "continuum" is decided by an individual based on his reading of a situation? What forces you to accept the ruling of someone that decides it was an inappropriate escalation?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:32 AM

Quote:
On one end, you have a mere threat of violence.

This is where I think libertarians have limited imagination.

On the one end, you have approval, benefits, full inclusion into society. Then perhaps you have shunning, discomfort, exclusion, lack of benefits. THEN you have active disapproval: punishment of the threat of punishment.

I find YOUR thinking primitive at best. You were prolly punished as a child and that's all you know. But in any case, if you think that redress for lack of payment is "violence" you've completely undermined your capitalo-libertarian brethren.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
What if the government simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share?-Signy

Do they not already do this? Don't you, as an employee, have taxes withheld and paid to the government? What if you didn't pay your payroll taxes? You don't suppose someone would come around threatening violence or incarceration if you didn't pay up? -Kwicko

so-called "payroll" taxes consist of several portions. If you don't pay Social Security taxes, then your employees will not accumulate Social Security quarters. If you don't pay Medicare, ditto. Same with state disability and state unemployment.

So some of these w/drawals are pretty direct fee-for-service.

Ooops, real life calls,

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
On one end, you have a mere threat of violence.
This is where I think libertarians have limited imagination.

On the one end, you have approval, benefits, full inclusion into society. Then perhaps you have shunning, discomfort, exclusion, lack of benefits. THEN you have active disapproval: punishment of the threat of punishment.

I find YOUR thinking primitive at best. You were prolly punished as a child and that's all you know. But in any case, if you think that redress for lack of payment is "violence" you've completely undermined your capitalo-libertarian brethren.
.

You know I kinda got the impression that at least what Frem imagines is a kind of rugged individualism and self reliance where by any communal benefits or obligations were strictly voluntary? I know what you are saying, back in history being banished from your community was effectively a death sentence but Fremworld has a higher level of self sufficiency than was common then (or now) so if the community decides to freeze out the individual due to some perceived misbehavior it's not exactly going to stop him.

That's why there isn't really much discussion of social controls, it's hard for a community to control an individuals actions if he has to "opt in."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:53 PM

Nah, more along the lines of consent government.

Thing about sweden, as folks have mentioned, is that the Gov mostly does what the people want it to do, and they don't hold up their officials as lords or "better than" but simply functionaries that run the machinery.

Which works well enough for them, although I am not sure I would be interested in such a system unless there was a lot less OF it, you know ?

Now, there's situations, like, our cities water, it all goes through the same system, and it's more efficient to simply buy the service from the city, sure - cause I WANT that service and the city owns the infrastructure which provides it.

Trash pickup on the other hand, you can use the cities service (which we picked cause they're cheap, if not timely or efficient) you can contract your own, or haul it to the dump yourself - in fact, after setting an old mattress set out and calling them THREE SEPERATE TIMES and them not picking it up, I did take it to the dump myself, but since I AM paying the cities service, and they failed to provide, I sent THEM the freakin bill, which they did pay, with apologies.

Now our current little engagement is over the main drag - we need a new water main, sure, and we need the road repaved as well, that's bloody obvious, right ?

But when the contractors we've had bid all quote an average of $650,000.00 and the city wants a millage and budget totalling $6,000,000.00 AND wants to build a water tower which the contractors have told them not only do they NOT need, but that there is nowhere to PUT it because the weight would soon cause it to collapse into the lake - that's when us locals, who still remember firing the mayor and secretary for corruption and embezzlement draw the line, cause the rest of the council is cut from the same cloth, we just didn't have enough proof and no one willing to replace them.

But we ain't payin no six million off jacked up property taxes for them to funnel into their relatives construction firms either, mind you.

Anyhows, the point of that is that I don't mind payin for infrastructure, or services I *want*.

But then theres matters like the local PD's new cruiser, a fucking Mustang Saleen Police Interceptor worth nearly $40k for a town ONE MILE WIDE with no speed limit greater than 30mph.

THAT, I damn sure DO mind paying for!

And the local cops know it too, since they have to find someone else to fix their yard equipment and small engine stuff till that car goes, cause I refuse to do business with them as long as it is here.

One thing folks fail to realize is that I am perfectly willing to buy services from a Government, given our *current* social model it's the most effective means of providing infrastructure or access to it.

But I am NOT willing to be robbed at gunpoint to pay for their employees playtoys, or line the pockets of their friends, by no means.

And I certainly have religious, philosophical, and moral objections to being forced to finance an act of aggression upon a country which has neither invaded us nor offered *significant* threat to us whatsoever.

And worse, an act that the majority of the fuckin populace does NOT approve of, while watching the Gov act in direct contravention of the desire and benefit of the population as a whole for their own purposes.

Not sure that's a hundred percent as clear as I'd like, but imma hope the concept gets across there.

-F

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On the one end, you have approval, benefits, full inclusion into society. Then perhaps you have shunning, discomfort, exclusion, lack of benefits.

These are the dynamics provided by society, not government. These non-violent dynamics are what make a libertarian and anarchistic society work. I not only have no problem with these influences, I count on them fully in my ideal society.

Quote:

THEN you have active disapproval: punishment of the threat of punishment.

This is the violent part. And here you have a continuum from threat of punishment/violence to actual violence / extreme violence. This is the part provided either by government in a statist society or by individuals in an anarchistic society.

Here is the key again. Definition of Government: Violence or threat of violence. All non-violent solutions are voluntary and non-governmental. See?

Let's take your payment garnishing scenario a little further. I preempt his paycheck and suck a chunk out. He gets mad. He thinks I sold him a lemon, cheated him, and don't deserve payment in addition to the big favor he already did for me. (People always have reasons or rationales, you know.) He garnishes my paycheck and sucks that money back. I go back and do it to him. He takes it back.

At this point, the conflict consists of a series of thefts, which are technically non-violent. I steal from him, he steals it back from me. But how long do you think this can go on without an escalation in conflict? If you carry property disputes to the end, you end up with at least unarmed robbery, where one party intimidates the other to let go. Sometimes, you have armed robbery, where one party threatens with weapons for the other to let go.

In the case of the GOVT garnishing a paycheck, well I can't steal it back from them. If I try, they will kidnap me and put me in prison with mean ugly people. Their taking my paycheck without my consent is armed robbery. The govt always has threat of violence behind its actions. ALWAYS. Any non-violent consequence is societal, not governmental. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can have meaningful dialogue.

For any scenario you think of as simply "forceful" but not violent, think how you would feel if an RWA did it to you for their wacko-freak reasons. Would it be acceptable because they weren't technically violent at the time? Think what would ultimately result if you chose not to cooperate and let it go, if you were to fight back. Would violence ensue?

If you can't see that, then we have no common ground with common definitions and premises upon which to have a discussion.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you don't pay Social Security taxes, then your employees will not accumulate Social Security quarters. If you don't pay Medicare, ditto. Same with state disability and state unemployment.

If you don't pay Social Security taxes, you go to jail, AND your employees will not accumulate Social Security quarters.

These fee-for-service taxes are not voluntary. They are enforced by threat of violence. I know employers who went to prison for not withdrawing such taxes. In fact, I sometimes send them money to support them in their civil disobedience.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Still it raises an interesting question. If someone does garnish your wages and you DO shoot them who gets to decide if that was appropriate or not if the "continuum" is decided by an individual based on his reading of a situation? What forces you to accept the ruling of someone that decides it was an inappropriate escalation?

That is an interesting and very legitimate question.

In a libertarian society, the rule of law would standardize such responses. In an anarchistic one, well, those are pretty much play-by-ear places. I imagine that fellow anarchists would not take too kindly to an impulsive killer or serial killer who uses toe-stepping as a pretext to shoot someone. Those sort of people are a danger to everyone.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:14 PM

Quote:
In a libertarian society, the rule of law would standardize such responses. In an anarchistic one, well, those are pretty much play-by-ear places. I imagine that fellow anarchists would not take too kindly to an impulsive killer or serial killer who uses toe-stepping as a pretext to shoot someone. Those sort of people are a danger to everyone.

And thus they would be handled by violence or the threat of violence.

So neither libertarian nor anarchic society is violence-free. In fact, compared to a well-functioning government the threat of violence seems higher and more random.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:15 PM

I thought about it and I've come to the following conclusion. At it's heart the Fremworld situation is still coersive with ultimately the treat of violence as the motivating factor. The difference is actually that the violence spectrum is compressed.

In a standard civil society social control takes place at various levels. If they don't want you to part on a specific street, they can ticket you. Now ultimately that restriction is based on force, because if you dont pay the ticket and actively resist attempts to make you pay you will be thrown in jail (or "kidnapped and taken somewhere not nice" as CTS says.) Ultimately all laws, even something as trivial as littering are backed by the threat of force at the extreme end of the legal process.

Now as CTS says ultimately if an argument escallates to violence and the "community" as a whole decides that escallation inappropriate then they will do something about it... which is shorthand for saying use their own violence. So even in cryptoanarchist societies the threat of violence is still, ultimately the thing that keeps the bad actors in line, it's just that the application of that violence is potentially a lot closer to the perp than it would be in a civil society.

In our world if someone threatened you and you feared for your life, you would have to prove that the threats were real to a court, and they would then apply the threat of community violence to quell it. In Fremworld, if you genuinely believe that the threat is real and you have the means to respond to it you can immediately and then get societal endorsement of your actions later.

It also means that who you are in a society has far more impact on the application of justice than it does in a lawfull case.

Imagine this scenario in Fremworld

Old Fred is loved by all, he's a contankerous old cout but honest, hard working and would give you the shirt off his back. He's been going through a rough patch recently since the death of his wife but he's still refusing community offers to help.

Barney comes from the local "bad family" the folks most suspected when things go missing. They are seen as nar-do-wells but Barney has been making some effort to clean up his act. He's got a low loader and makes a living moving big stuff from county to county. People still see him as a sharp operator but they will do business with him.... even though they count every coin he gives them.

Now one day there is a shooting at Fred's farm and a man lies dead.

scenario 1:

Fred stands over the dead body of Barney. Seems that he paid Barney to ship some hay and Barney took half the money and welched on the deal. Fred suspects Barney sold the hay to someone else. They had an argument during which Barney reached for a gun and Fred defended himself.

The community knows and trusts Fred. Determines that barney showed his true colors and that Fred's action was justified because Barney was initiating violence.

Scenario 2:

Jack, Freds neighbor, is on his way to see Fred when he is almost run off of the farm road by a car. Jack recognises the driver as being Barney. Arriving at the farm Jack can't find Fred immediately, but finds a blood trail, he follows this to a woodpile under which he finds Fred's body. When the citizen militia go to Barney's house they find Barney nursing a bulet wound in his leg. Barney claims there was an argument over a hay delivery during which Fred drew a weapon and shot Barney. Barney then shot and fired in self defence killing Fred. Realising that the situation looked bad Fred panicked and tried to hide the body.

Of course everyone likes Fred and KNOWS he could never have drawn first, so that proves that Barney was the violent party. After all he's not as well liked as Fred was.

The problem here is that Barney's version is the one closest to the truth. The only difference between scene 1 and scene 2 is that in 1) Fred proves to be a better shot.

What actually happened was that Fred has been suffering from intense pain, exacerbated by having to run his small holding single h

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:09 PM

Quote:
These fee-for-service taxes are not voluntary. They are enforced by threat of violence. I know employers who went to prison for not withdrawing such taxes. In fact, I sometimes send them money to support them in their civil disobedience

CTS, I think that you really don't have a problem with "violence" per se, you're just so very oppositional that it doesn't matter what sort of collective action is under consideration, you're just automatically against it. And you seem so willing to escalate every interaction to the point of violence that YOU might be seen as a threat to the community.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:47 PM

So, to put this discussion back on-track... it seems that the problem isn't with government per se (except for CTS) but with the level of violence that would be consistently applied in its maintenance. In other words, how "authoritarian" the model of government.

Now, it seems that ANY model of government- including anarchism and libertarianism- includes some degree of violence or its threat. Because even under capitalo-libertarianism (for example) contracts have to be "enforced" somehow, and under libertarianism there would be a "play it by ear" level of violence. So we're not really talking about differences in kind so much as differences in degree.

Is the only goal then to create a system where violence is minimal? That seems to be the big question. Because I can come up with MANY kinds of constructs where violence is low BUT there will be a price to pay... perhaps in "rugged individualism" or "entreprenuerialism" or "privacy" or some of feature of society that you might find vital. But if the primary goal is to reduce violence, and there are no secondary agendas in the background, then we whould be able to develop a model quite easily.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So neither libertarian nor anarchic society is violence-free.

And nobody ever claimed it would be. Gun in every hand? Hello?

The difference in violence in a libertarian or anarchist society vs. violence used by RWA or government is the motive.

Anarchists use violence in response to violence itself.

RWA's and government use violence to impose ideology on people who have not initiated violence.

My issue with you, Sig, is that you point your finger at RWA's for using violence for ideological agendas when you yourself have no problems using violence for similar agendas through government. You don't recognize that the government is ultimately just as violent as the RWA's, if not more.

I don't have a problem with violence itself, politically speaking. There is no way to escape violence in any society. It is what violence is used for and who decides how violence is used that gets my goat. This, in the end, determines how many victims of violence there are as well.

Government is violence in large denominations. Wholesale violence, if you will. Anarchistic violence is violence in small denominations, mom-and-pop retail violence.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In a civil society both parties present their cases in an atmosphere that is amicable.

C'mon Fletch. Your "I shot him by mistake" scenario doesn't happen in civil society?

In an anarchist society, it is equally likely as in civil society that Fred and Barney can go to some mechanism for non-violent mediation before they shot each other.

Quote:
I wonder how long it will be before those "well liked" individuals effectively run the town?

And in civil society, how do individuals who effectively run the town get chosen? NOT by popularity? It seems to me the entire voting process is a popularity poll.

I must say I am impressed with your ability to summarize other people's positions, as you understand them. And you appear to have a pretty good understanding too--for the most part, I don't dispute your summaries. You have an exceptional ability to go to the heart of the matter. I like that, because it is so rare on this board. People here tend to get sidetracked on tangential strawmen.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
My issue with you, Sig, is that you point your finger at RWA's for using violence for ideological agendas when you yourself have no problems using violence for similar agendas through government. You don't recognize that the government is ultimately just as violent as the RWA's, if not more.

This is your bread-and-butter assumption but it is only an assumption. I can show you lots of REAL governments and lots of theoretical ones where this is not the case. You have this idee fixe that you can't seem to dislodge from your head, no matter what. And your equally-unproven assumption is that in anarchyland no one will initiate violence to force their viewpoint on someone else.

Quote:
I don't have a problem with violence itself, politically speaking. There is no way to escape violence in any society. It is what violence is used for and who decides how violence is used that gets my goat

The feeling I'm getting from you is that you don't have a problem with violence as long as you're the one who wields it. And that would put you in the hypocrite category... crying loud and long about the violence of government. As you said: you don't have a problem with violence. So why don't you tell us what you REAL beef is, instead of crying wolf?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
"Then sometime later, those RWA's go to your home and tell you that everyone believes in evolution has to live in the Evolution District. They send 10 large unarmed men to physically carry you and your belongings to your new home.
Is that violent?"

You see CTS, you can 'prove' anything if you jack the story around enough. And you make a point of doing just that.

Does the government REALLY send thugs around to enforce evolution on special districts ? Then I sure need to go to my local school district and look through that budget. Just to see how MANY they've been hiring. Can you give me a job title to look for ? Evolution enforcer ? Evolution thug ? A job title would really help out. THANKS !

Or do they have a different method, called 'not on our dime' ? As in, we don't care where you live, and you can teach what you want, but not on our dime.

So, you tell me - is that violent ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is your bread-and-butter assumption but it is only an assumption.

I swear you guys don't read what I write.

I said at the outset that this was the DEFINITION of government that is the foundation of most political science theory.

Quote:
The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate violence and monopoly on violence) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physica
l_force

Instead of attacking me personally, why don't you answer some of the questions I posed in previous threads? Or are we stooping to mud-slinging debate tactics now?

As a LIBERTARIAN (someone who SUPPORTS small GOVT), I have no problem with the violence of government as long as it is used in RESPONSE to initiation of violence. It is government violence against non-violent citizens I have a problem with.

Here is another major point of contention. I see both you and RWAs as having a strong sense of morality and wanting to use force/threats of violence to impose that morality on society at large (i.e. people who have done no harm to anyone) in order to PREVENT transgressions against that morality. The justification for violence on non-criminals is the same: prevention.

I justify the political use of violence in retaliation only, AFTER a violent crime or a property crime has been committed. I see all forceful prevention as unbearably oppressive, since it uses force to mold the behavior of completely innocent people.

See the difference between you and me? See how I see no difference between you and a RWA?

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:53 PM

You left out this part:

"The aim is to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens and the elimination of the arbitrary exercise of power (dictatorship) and the violent enforcement of particular individuals or interest groups."

Capisce ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:09 AM

An observation

Altemeyer plays a specific trick with his usage of the word "right" which is not usefull because it is not the way that most people use the word these days.

Quote:

Right-Wing and Left-Wing Authoritarian Followers
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then,
maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)

......

But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the
established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly
conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing
authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or
happy or grumpy or dopey.

Clever but not helpful.

However, it does allow us via this definition to define LWA's.

In recent months Moqtada al-Sadr has been purging commanders in his Mahdi Army that are seen as being disloyal. This is something that terrorist groups and governments in waiting do all the time, usually very violently because all parties are usually heavily armed.

If we look at the definition above

We see that folks that are footsoldiers in organisations like the Mahdi army and AlQ are LWA.

1) They actively oppose the established authorities in their society -- in the main because they aim to replace them.

2)high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3) a high level of non conformity.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:
I said at the outset that this was the DEFINITION of government that is the foundation of most political science theory.

In other words, it's an assumption. More specifically, it appears to be Max Weber's assumption. Excuse me for challenging your assumption, but I don't buy into it.

Quote:
As a LIBERTARIAN (someone who SUPPORTS small GOVT), I have no problem with the violence of government as long as it is used in RESPONSE to initiation of violence

But in your view ANY government function is violent: taxes are violent, fees are violent, laws are violent. You JUST said

Quote:
You don't recognize that the government is ultimately just as violent as the RWA's, if not more.

So how can you support any government at all?

You seem confused. In any case, you're confusing the hell out of me.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So how can you support any government at all?

Sigh. Don't you read my posts at all??? Scroll up. I just explained it.

Let's approach it a different way. Take the mandatory vaccination issue. Let's assume for the sake of this argument that vaccines are effective in preventing disease and infection and are perfectly safe. There are two ways government can approach this problem using threat of violence.

It can seek preventative legislation. It can force people, on threat of violence, to vaccinate their children before being sent to school. It would use threat of violence on kids who have not yet harmed anyone and may never harm anyone.

Or it can seek punitive legislation. The government might make it a crime to infect another citizen with a disease for which there exists a vaccine. It would do nothing to children before attending school, but if a child should infect another with a vaccine-preventable disease, the parents would have to pay for it. This approach would use threat of violence on people who are responsible for harming property or life (provided they are convicted of course).

You support the former form of violent govt. I support the latter form of violent govt. You support preventative violence. I support punitive violence. See the difference?

There is one more important difference. I only support punitive violence if a second party's life or property is damaged, if someone's sovereignty has been violated. And I only support the same level of punitive violence as was committed (no death sentence for stepping on toes).

RWA's want to make all sorts of things a crime, thus preventing and punishing all sorts of immoral behavior, even when there are no victims. Making recreational drugs illegal, forcing people to pay for X service that society has a right to, telling people what kind of marriage or sex they can have, making gun ownership illegal, making ownership of X illegal even if X is not used to harm others, forcing employers to pay a certain wage, etc. In other words, they want to legislate morality.

I see no real difference between their wanting to legislation religious morality and your wanting to legislate economic morality. Both of you want to use threat of violence impose your moral values on people who have not committed any acts that hurt anyone else.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, it's an assumption. More specifically, it appears to be Max Weber's assumption. Excuse me for challenging your assumption, but I don't buy into it.

You don't have to. I only said that if we can't agree on a definition, we have no common ground upon which to build a meaningful debate.

And it isn't just Max Weber. It is the predominant definition of government in the field of political science.

But fine. I can entertain a different definition of government. I can support legislation if it is not enforceable. If a city council makes an ordinance that it is illegal to step on city grass, but provides no method for enforcement except for dirty looks from city employees, I'm fine with that.

I don't have a problem with a body of government that has no teeth. Take the UN for example. Yeah, let them draft all the resolutions they want. I'm not complaining.

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:03 AM

"It can force people, on threat of violence, to vaccinate their children before being sent to school."

Or, it can use the non-violent approach - not on our dime.

It isn't threatening to 'kidnap' you to some nasty place. All it's doing is withholding a service (that you don't seem to want anyway). I'd give it high marks for being so accommodating. You get exactly what you want.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:57 AM

Quote:
Or it can seek punitive legislation. The government might make it a crime to infect another citizen with a disease for which there exists a vaccine. It would do nothing to children before attending school, but if a child should infect another with a vaccine-preventable disease, the parents would have to pay for it. This approach would use threat of violence on people who are responsible for harming property or life (provided they are convicted of course).

How would you "repay" parents whose child developed irreversible brain damage from a perfectly preventable (in your scenario) disease? (You have this fixation that vaccines are dangerous but diseases are benign.

). Seeing as there is no possible repayment, would you advocate vengeance? Would you damage the brain of their child?

Quote:
You support preventative violence. I support punitive violence. See the difference?

Yeah, the overall level of violence in your system is higher because it allows the initial violence and then responds with more violence. I think that's the system we have today. And your system functions less efficiently because it doesn't prevent problems, it only responds with violence to them. It seems to me that you have a hammer in your hand (violence) and you use it to solve some things, but a lot of other problems don't get addressed at all.

Quote:
There is one more important difference. I only support punitive violence if a second party's life or property is damaged, if someone's sovereignty has been violated. And I only support the same level of punitive violence as was committed (no death sentence for stepping on toes).

Okay, so let's take something less drastic: parking. A roadway's traffic load has gotten too high over time, and the only way to maintain free traffic flow is to prevent parking. So NO PARKING signs go up. But persistent scofflaws insist on parking, snarling traffic and causing accidents. What to do?

You tell me.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:25 AM

I don't even wanna argue over state religion.

Just heard the song by Bob Dylan "Absolutely Sweet Marie"

the line "To live outside the law, you must be honest..."

the corollary is worth consideration.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:56 AM

Once again the expressed analogy includes all kinds of unsupportable assumptions, and I really wish to hell folks would go back and not only read what I wrote in those threads, but stop attributing to me positions and such that were offered by others that I might not even agree with, many of them offered after I concluded it was pointless to argue with what amounts to religious fanatics, and ceased that discussion.

Now, that being said - my FIRST response to the whole matter would be...
"And how is this my business, again ?"

My second response would deal with whether or not I had any association with or did business with either one, and would depend on their individual credibility with me personally and how I felt about the situation.

Using a "gods-eye-view" in your analogy to set up a situation where things are not as they seem is all well and good, but be advised that courts in our current society don't have that view and are far from infallible, as are people.

Stuff like that happens, you deal with it - but Anarchists don't have this blind and stupid faith that trust in a Government and handing over all your personal rights and money can make it NOT happen, we simple acknowledge that it does and freakin deal with it individually.

And to cut down these unfortunate assumptions, scale it back a ways and start asking the question of where bad actors come from and what creates and encourages their behavior.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:24 PM

Quote:
To live outside the law, you must be honest.

Have you ever dealt with criminals? I mean, this is stirring stuff, but it's sheer romanticism.

Anyhow... I'd like an answer from CTS as to how do you "repay" the parents AND the child who's brain was irreversibly and preventably damaged by someone else. I mean, what kind of payment pr punishment could possibly redress that personal catastrophe?

I think what CTS is saying is that she thinks the only legitimate role of government is to control violence between individuals (or groups?) after the fact on a case-by-case basis through the use of violence. So AFA the traffic flow problem... We can handle this anarchically: NO PARKING signs are not posted, but drivers get so pissed that they will stop and routinely vandalize the cars in their way. Or we can put up signs, which most people will obey, and simply tow any illegally parked cars and require payment for their release.

According to CTS, the whole act of putting up and enforcing NO PARKING signs is violent because 1) it's preventative and 2) if her car gets towed she has been deprived an asset in the enforcement of something she didn't personally agree to and 3) collecting the taxes/fees for this operation is also violent because she didn't personally agree to that either.

I think the after-the fact approach is unworkable for several reasons:
1) It presupposes that there is some sort of enforcement mechanism in place: courts, jails, police etc. That takes money. How do you propose to collect it?

2) It also presupposes that everyone "knows the rules" already. Let's assume that in the grand sweep of things, we already know "Thou shall not kill" and agree to abide by that. But in the case of an out-of-town businessman or visitor, they many not know that "everybody knows" you shouldn't park there because it blocks traffic. There has to be some way of publicizing the rules... even very local and specific rules... to everyone.

3) Some sorts of things are best handled preventively. In the case of pollution or second-hand smoke for example, it can take decades for the health effects to show up and even then the damage is statistical and causality is difficult to prove. Allowing the damage to occur and THEN requiring that the injured party sue an entity (which may no longer exist) and prove their claim... twenty years later... has not only allowed the damage to occur in the first place, it places such a high burden on the plaintiff that it's unlikely to be an effective deterrent.

4) There are some services in which "the government" is a legitimate provider: road building and maintenance for example. (Can you imagine having to pay a toll each time you drive out of your driveway?)

Now, MY problem with government is NOT government per se it's the amount of violence that's used in its maintenance. The more violent the government (and no, I don't consider "taxes" as instrinsically violent) the more likely it is that it is not reflecting the will and morality of the people.

I'm not sure I'd be OK with any and all non-violent governments. As i said before, the price to pay for some forms might be beyond what I was willing to pay. But that's a societal decision not a personal one.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How would you "repay" parents whose child developed irreversible brain damage from a perfectly preventable (in your scenario) disease? (You have this fixation that vaccines are dangerous but diseases are benign. ). Seeing as there is no possible repayment, would you advocate vengeance? Would you damage the brain of their child?

Yes. Yes, I would. I fully support damaging the brains of children on purpose. For crying out loud, Sig. What kind of question is that?

If it were a crime to infect someone else with a disease, consequences can include anything from compensatory damages to punitive damages to prison time (say, for manslaughter). It would depend on the amount of damage and suffering caused by the disease, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Yeah, the overall level of violence in your system is higher because it allows the initial violence and then responds with more violence.

The key word was, "Yeah." As long as you see the difference in the guiding motive behind the violence, we can go from there to debate which system might be better in which circumstances. But you had to at least see the difference, which apparently didn't happen up to now. So we've made progress.

Now, does a punitive system "allow" the initial violence any more than a preventative system? Both systems punish for the initial violence, so there is no legal blank check for such violence in either system. The main difference is that preventative systems punish for additional behaviors which are believed to cause the initial violence. These policies are predicated on a few assumptions: 1) that these additional behaviors indeed cause the initial violence/damage, 2) preventing these behaviors will actually prevent violence/damage, and 3) there are no other methods of decreasing risks that citizens can voluntarily elect.

In the real world, it is practically impossible to prove these assumptions. What you deal with then are statistics predicting the probability of these assumptions being true. You then have an additional assumption: 4) that the people proposing these statistics are objective and are not skewing them in the slightest (cause statistics are easily skewed) for political agendas. Then you threaten citizens who have not harmed anyone yet, on the pain of violence, to restrict their behaviors based on these probabilities.

The ethical and moral dilemma of this preventative system, taken to its sci-fi extreme, is illustrated in the movie, Minority Report. Just how much violence do you use on currently innocent people to prevent the probability of violence? Is it right to systematically and violently restrict citizens who have not yet committed crimes for crimes you think they might commit?

Obviously, depending on one's value system, one would answer yes or no. The relevance on this thread, I believe, is that RWA's would say yes, and libertarian/anarchists would say no. My issue with you is that I think your value system is more similar to that of the RWAs than you think. You both would support the use of violence/threat of violence on innocent citizens to prevent your specific versions of immorality.

Quote:
It seems to me that you have a hammer in your hand (violence) and you use it to solve some things, but a lot of other problems don't get addressed at all.

The hammer is not the only tool in my hand. Other problems get addressed with other tools, non-violent tools.

Quote:
Okay, so let's take something less drastic: parking. A roadway's traffic load has gotten too high over time, and the only way to maintain free traffic flow is to prevent parking. So NO PARKING signs go up. But persistent scofflaws insist on parking, snarling traffic and causing accidents. What to do?

Here are again two ways of dealing with potential transgressors who would clog up that service for everyone. One would be preventative before causing harm, and the other punitive after causing harm. You can tell people that to use a service, they have to abide by a certain set of r

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:47 PM

Quote:
You both would support the use of violence/threat of violence on innocent citizens to prevent your specific versions of immorality.

And you have repeatedly ignored my posts that - unlike you- I DO have a problem with violence. Violence, IMHO, serves nothing. The only reason to allow violence is immediate self-defense. So, once violence is taken off the table as a tool, where does that leave your characterization of my position?

Oh, that's right- nowhere.

So if you can just get YOUR head stuck off violence then maybe we can get somewhere.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Have you ever dealt with criminals? I mean, this is stirring stuff, but it's sheer romanticism.

Only if you miss the point.

One of the things living within the law allows us is dishonesty. More importantly, it allows people to prey on the assumptions and complacency fostered by government.

Lets take the idea of IDs, for example. I'd propose that in a country without a state identification system it would be harder to misrepresent your identity, not easier. You could claim to be anyone, but people would be accustomed to using their own judgement (imagine that!) when deciding whether or not to trust you.

The point of the quote isn't that criminals are preferable company, or that there's anything romantic about a life of crime. The point IS the corollary: Living within the law actually makes it easier be dishonest. The scruples of a typical politician are a testament to that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:07 PM

Quote:
Yes. Yes, I would. I fully support damaging the brains of children on purpose. For crying out loud, Sig. What kind of question is that? If it were a crime to infect someone else with a disease, consequences can include anything from compensatory damages to punitive damages to prison time (say, for manslaughter). It would depend on the amount of damage and suffering caused by the disease, wouldn't it?

There is no way to "make it right". But what if the offending family is too poor to pay for a lifetime of continuing medical care, therapy, and lost wages?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:40 PM

It's a difference of perspective. Let's take drinking and driving as an example. Now you could drink and drive be involved in an accident and kill someone, or you could drive home without incident. We know from statistics that people who drink have increased chance of haing an accident but those stats can't say that this specific driver will have an accident if he drinks and drives.

And yet despite the fact that he hasn't had an accident yet and that we can't even prove that he WILL have an accident, we still make the practice of drinking and driving illegal. In effect we feel entitled to restrict his "right to use his property (ie his car) even though no actual damage has been done based only on the increased probability that if you drink you may have an accident.

So actual rights are restricted in order to prevent only a POTENTIAL accident. I think CTS's possition is that rather than pre-emptively punish the behavior, you should more agressively punish the offender if an accident actually results from his action.

Not agreeing with the POV, just summerising what I think the point is.

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:51 PM

Details.

And, uhm - there are three kinds of posters on this board - government is always right (that's Finn, Geezer, Hero et al), government is never right (CTS, Frem, SergeantX, 6-ix, et al), and government is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

People who take positions like always and never are closed to data and so, deluded. That's why I discount those opinions completely.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:11 PM

Quote:
So actual rights are restricted in order to prevent only a POTENTIAL accident. I think CTS's possition is that rather than pre-emptively punish the behavior, you should more agressively punish the offender if an accident actually results from his action.

This is where I summarize CTS' position as waiting for violence to happen (the drunken accident) and then meeting it with violence (punishment) which is why I think CTS's model actually allows more violence. (And in fact, we pretty much follow that model now, because our crime rate makes universal enforcement impossible and so only the "violent" are responded to.)

My position is: I would rather prevent the whole mess in the first place. "Punishing" someone after the fact will NEVER make up for any permanent damage they've done. What's the point of punishment anyway? If they're a true alcoholic it won't make them quit drinking, and it sure won't help the victim(s), particularly if they've been killed or prermanently disabled. But if you take the keys away from them and nicely direct them to the nearest treatment program you may not only save a life, you might also turn one around. Sure it's statistical, but it's also not "violent" in the sense that you're not serving up pain and suffering for trangressing the rules.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:52 PM

True, but if he doesnt take the program and decides to drive a point will come where you have to compell him to do the action, even if it's in his best interest.

Same with the guy you catch drunk driving, he hasn't actually done any violence yet (hasn't had the accident) but you are still using your threat of violence -- or actual violence -- when you arrest him.

Any society with rules, even crypto-anarchist ones ultimately enforce them with the threat of violence. Preventative laws use that threat against people that haven't done the violent crime yet in order to prevent that crime. Punative laws punish those that have actually commited the violence.

An overly simplistic representation is that preventative laws punish the innocent in the hopes of stopping them from becoming guilty.

It's interesting.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:
True, but if he doesnt take the program and decides to drive a point will come where you have to compell him to do the action, even if it's in his best interest.

Well, you can take away his car and his license. It's not foolproof... friends WILL loan cars, even to a habitual drunk driver w/o a license... but I can also think of all kinds of neat little techno gizmos that would prevent him from driving drunk simply by not allowing the car to start.

Quote:
Any society with rules, even crypto-anarchist ones ultimately enforce them with the threat of violence

Why is it always violence with you guys? That's what I mean by lacking imagination. Let me give you an example: Taxes.

Let's say that we've all decided that a patchwork of private tollroads is NOT the way to go, and that we've decided that the best way to ensure our safe and convenient transportation is to hand off road building and maintenance to that oft-maligned institution, the gummint. Now, we can levy a tax on every person in the state (city, county, nation) and go after miscreants with hammer and tongs, but... some of the people don't drive at all. They could say that they haven't agreed to this service, don't use it, and therefore shouldn't have to pay. One argument is that of course they make indirect use of the roads because of goods transporation, but setting that aside there is a neat solution for the problem, which is simply to levy a tax on gasoline and diesel and to earmark those funds for road maintenance.

There may be some retailers here and there who refuse to levy that tax, but yet again I can think of several non-violent and even non-governmental ways of dealing with that problem. But my lunch hour is over.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why is it always violence with you guys? That's what I mean by lacking imagination. Let me give you an example: Taxes.

It's to do with enforcement. Sooner or later all rules, even tax rules have to be backed by action if you fail to follow them and ultimately that becomes forcefull.

Taxes are one of those areas where rules become VERY important, that's why there are specialists in iterpreting the rules and why misinterpreation or misrepresenting those rules can dump you in jail.

I would argue that any rules based system that is enforced is backed by violence at some level. I don't nescessarily see that as a problem so long as all parties understand that and the use of force is appropriate and has limits. I suspect you really have no problem with that either, though obviously you would prefer it if there was a better way. Even CTS accepts it, it's just who gets to apply it and when that seems at issue.

You've heard of the "Free Rider" scenario? This I think can be called the "bad actor" scenario. How you deal with bad actors, how you stop the guy from swinging too close to his neighbors nose, is an important part of what makes a society work, and more importantly for you perhaps, makes it equitable.

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:00 PM

"Same with the guy you catch drunk driving, he hasn't actually done any violence yet (hasn't had the accident) but you are still using your threat of violence -- or actual violence -- when you arrest him."

You could use that same argument for driving on the 'wrong' side of the road. She may not have caused an accident yet but she gets arrested anyway. You could say the same thing about someone 'just looking' around someone else's windows at 3 AM while the family is asleep in the house, about selling tire pressure gages that read properly, or uncountable other preventative rules. And every society has and enforces those rules, formal or informal, trivial or important, personal or social.

And guess what ! we voluntarily agree to live by those rules because they reduce physical chaos - by stopping at red lights and driving down the proper side of the road for example; mediate social encounters - not yelling incoherently and waving your arms as a general rule; and so on.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:02 PM

"I would argue that any rules based system that is enforced is backed by violence at some level."

The Amish and Quakers would disagree.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I would argue that any rules based system that is enforced is backed by violence at some level."

The Amish and Quakers would disagree.

How do they deal with the "bad actor" problem?

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:12 PM

Reason, then shunning. And you can always leave the community. Unlike the FLDS all children are educated to an acceptable standard, to allow them to survive in the outside world. As a matter of course, the Amish require that you leave the community and live 'outside' so that if / when you come back, it is of your own free will. It is remarkably non-violent and non-coercive. If you chose to live there you understand the rules. If you don't want to abide by them, you are free to go elsewhere.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:38 PM

Essentially then they expell their bad actors and make them someone else's problem. Of course if that couldn't happen (ie there was no "outside world" for the expelled to live in) explusion would be a death sentence. How could we apply it on a larger scale? We used to ship malcontents to Australia, how do you shun someone in a modern society?

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:41 PM

Outfit them with an ankle bracelet that smells SO BAD that nobody would want to deal with them in person?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:51 PM

Isn't that "Old Spice?"

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:06 PM

"Essentially then they expel their bad actors and make them someone else's problem."
But their rules and consequent 'problems' are different from other places. A 'bad actor' to them might mean someone who wants to wear red. So their bad actors could be another group's saints.

"Of course if that couldn't happen (ie there was no "outside world" for the expelled to live in) expulsion would be a death sentence."
Fortunately we don't live in outer space - so there is always somewhere viable to go.

"How could we apply it on a larger scale?" and " We used to ship malcontents to Australia, how do you shun someone in a modern society?"
As I mentioned above, one man's sinner is another man's saint. You are free to go to whatever society will accept you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:14 PM

That's ok if the "bad actor" just has unfortunate dress sense. How do you deal with the violent, the criminally psychotic and the sociopaths? At some point someone has to deal with them don't they? Isn't this just dumping your sewage upstream of your neighbour?

CITIZEN

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:18 PM

All reasonable civil societies will have some form of 'violence' at the extreme end of the spectrum, they're reasonable because the 'violence' will be strictly regulated, to ensure the violence is both appropriate and not misapplied. They will also tend to ensure those meting punishment are not personally involved with the case in anyway.

Unreasonable systems would have violence inherent within any social system wholly ad hoc, unregulated and meted out by those closest to the crime. Such a system is much closer to the violence of high-RWAs than a more reasonable and regulated society.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:18 PM

"How do you deal with the violent, the criminally psychotic and the sociopaths? Isn't this just dumping your sewage upstream of your neighbour?"

Hell's Angels ? I bet you can always find a willing group to join. In fact, I bet the more violent, criminally psychotic and sociopathic you are, the better they'll like you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And, uhm - there are three kinds of posters on this board - government is always right (that's Finn, Geezer, Hero et al), government is never right (CTS, Frem, SergeantX, 6-ix, et al), and government is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

People who take positions like always and never are closed to data and so, deluded.

They sure are. And people who mis-characterize the positions of others, merely to supply themselves with a convenient strawman, even more so.

I don't think the government's always wrong. I don't even think you're always wrong, but your percentage wouldn't make a good batting average.

The kind of government I don't like is the kind promoted by self-righteous bigots who think they have the right to force their opinions of "the right way to live" on others. Apart from that, I'm pretty much in favor of law and order. Despite our 'thought experiments' on this board, I'm not really ready to embrace anarchy. Certainly not in the immediate future.

What gnaws at you and Signy is that I don't buy the ruse that your fundamental philosophy of government is any different Auraptor's. You all want to see people 'brought to heel'. You just have a different idea of what they ought to be forced to do.

My position is centered around the idea of live and let live. It's fine if people have dreams of how they want to make a better world for everyone. I'll even get on board and try to help them if I agree with where they want to go. But if they can't move toward their goals that without forcing people to play along, they lose my support.

My notions about the proper role of government, in practical terms, overlap with yours more than you seem to understand. I'm in favor of all the basic laws against violence, theft, abuse, etc, etc... Even reasonable laws of expedience are fine with me (traffic violations, nuisance ordinances, etc.) But you lose me when you want to impose your ideas of the good life on people who might disagree with you. Your willingness to do that makes you no different than the neo-cons in my eyes. Both sides hold a dangerous philosophy of government that justifies the means with the ends.

In these discussions, I'm always tempted to quote Firefly. The series represented these ideas better than any I can recall. You should check it out sometime.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 2:43 AM

"But you lose me when you want to impose your ideas of the good life on people who might disagree with you."

And bring me any quote that supports your misrepresentation of my position.

Have I promoted religion in school ? Or atheism ? Been against gay marriage or cohabitation ? Anti-marriage ? Even against polygamy ? For forced sterilization, or anti-abortion ? You tell me. Which issue, which 'imposition'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And bring me any quote that supports your misrepresentation of my position.

I'm too busy to go hunting for quotes right now, and I don't like that kind of interchange anyway.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so, I'll call that a good thing and you have my apologies. But it's my recollection that you're usually among those speaking up for laws that seek to "protect" people from their own poor judgement - referred to less charitably as the "nanny state". Haven't we been in a good number of discussions where you take the position that it's the responsibility of government to outlaw activities where the only real victims are people voluntarily engaging in the activity? I'm thinking of things like laws that regulate what we eat, drink or smoke, laws that dictate how we must provide for our own health, educate our children, earn a living, manager personal risk etc, etc...

These kinds of laws generally operate under the guise of 'regulation', and it's my perception that you see that as somehow not the same as more overt styles of fascism - that you don't see any force or violence involved in these efforts. But it's there, and when we use force of that nature to impose our ideas of the right way to do things on others - well, that's the kind of government I'm against.

Like I said, if I'm wrong in this, if I've misinterpreted your posts and you're actually against this kind of abuse of government power, than I stand happily corrected.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, May 16, 2008 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Like I said, if I'm wrong in this, if I've misinterpreted your posts and you're actually against this kind of abuse of government power, than I stand happily corrected.

Hope you are presently in a comfy seat.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:18 PM

Quote:
The kind of government I don't like is the kind promoted by self-righteous bigots who think they have the right to force their opinions of "the right way to live" on others. Apart from that, I'm pretty much in favor of law and order. Despite our 'thought experiments' on this board, I'm not really ready to embrace anarchy. Certainly not in the immediate future.

What gnaws at you and Signy is that I don't buy the ruse that your fundamental philosophy of government is any different Auraptor's. You all want to see people 'brought to heel'. You just have a different idea of what they ought to be forced to do.

It disturbs me greatly when a family goes down the drain because dad is gone and mom is on drugs, when their children are neglected or (worse) beaten up; when people who don't smoke are forced to endure the smoke and the risk from people who do; when everyone is afraid of their neighbor with good reason; when people live wretched lives because of the greed and power of others. I'll bet these things disturb you too. I doubt that you could walk by a parent beating their kid in public with a shrug of your shoulders and say Well, that's their business.

I think we have an 80% overlap in "what" we want. The difference is HOW we think we're going to get there. Hero, Auraptor, and Finn believe in government violence. You? You believe in personal violence. And me? I personally don't believe in violence at all. I've come to realize that if you use violence to obtain a peaceful end, it just ain't gonna happen.

If "the government" is prohibited from using violence where does the "abuse of government power" come in? I think I understand your fears and goals but you seem to consistently misrepresent mine. I'm tempted to say

you but I'm gonna chalk it up to your lack of imagination.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You? You believe in personal violence. And me? I personally don't believe in violence at all. I've come to realize that if you use violence to obtain a peaceful end, it just ain't gonna happen.

I don't quite know what you mean by 'belief' in violence, or why you think I believe in 'personal violence', whatever that means. But you're kidding yourself when you try to pretend that the government intrusion you're so fond of doesn't involve violence.

Neither the government nor the individual can afford to rule out violence as an option. But it should only be in response to violence. It's the initiation of violence that should be condemned.

So, when a government agency busts down the door to stop abuse, as long as there's good reason to believe that it's actually going on, I'm all for that. The problem comes when you start concocting schemes to stop bad things from happening beforehand - preventative law. I've seen very few of these plans that don't involve the initiation of violence by the state, essentially forcing people to follow their dictates or face the consequences - which are ultimately violent.

I don't believe in personal violence. But I do believe people should have the freedom to decide when and where violence is warranted. If they decide wrong, in the eyes of society and the law, they'll pay the price. But it seems you aren't satisfied with that and want to make sure they don't have the option, that they are prevented from making the wrong decision in the first place.

Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do. Or, to put it another way "... me and mine gotta lay down and die so you can live in your better world"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And you have repeatedly ignored my posts that - unlike you- I DO have a problem with violence.

You say that. But you don't have a problem with passing a law that says Bob has to pay the government a portion of his income, or men with guns will kidnap him and put him in prison.

You don't have a problem with passing a law that says if Bob gets caught driving with a blood alcohol level, men with guns will kidnap him and put him in prison--even if he hasn't hurt anyone or damaged any property.

Of course, there are steps between Bob getting caught and men with guns, such as trial, conviction, fines, refusal to pay fines, etc. But skipping to the end, you find men with guns.

So pardon me if I don't take you seriously when you say you have a problem with violence. I didn't ignore those posts--I just don't believe them.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:24 PM

Quote:
I don't believe in personal violence. But I do believe people should have the freedom to decide when and where violence is warranted. If they decide wrong, in the eyes of society and the law, they'll pay the price. But it seems you aren't satisfied with that and want to make sure they don't have the option, that they are prevented from making the wrong decision in the first place.

People will always have the option of making "bad" decisions. But some societies seem to foster better decision-making than other.

Quote:
Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do.

No... I don't see where you got that idea. You're like CTS, you have this idee fixe that nothing can seem to dislodge and as a result you're not worth talking to. You are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying. So thanks for the dance, but we're not getting anywhere.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There may be some retailers here and there who refuse to levy that tax, but yet again I can think of several non-violent and even non-governmental ways of dealing with that problem.

I can too. None of those non-violent and non-governmental ways involve government or enforceable legislation, see?

If all you want is government solutions with no enforcement/violence and no "men with guns" at the end of solution, I am ALL FOR IT. Tell me where to sign. Let's go. Doesn't matter if it is prevention or punishment. Count me in.

Tell me though, how are you going to take Bob's car keys away and put him into rehab against his will without "men with guns" at the end of that solution? I'm stumped there.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My position is: I would rather prevent the whole mess in the first place.

And you can't use the law to prevent the whole mess, against the citizen's will, without the use of threats of violence that you are willing to carry through.

I am all for non-legal, non-forceful means of prevention.

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:47 PM

SergeantX

Now, pointing out that government could provide services to the people it represents makes me an authoritarian - how exactly ? You skipped over that part.

The other thing you seem to not comprehend - is that the people of most developed countries - all but the US in fact - and many developing countries - decide that that's how they want their government to run, and how they want their society to be. Novel concept that - people getting together to have a say in their own society. Oh wait, that's called democracy, I believe. So, if they freely and democratically choose those things, does that make them authoritarians ?

Just wondering, because you seem unclear on the concept of what it means to be an authoritarian.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:51 PM

Quote:
I can too. None of those non-violent and non-governmental ways involve government or enforceable legislation, see?

So you're really not against violence, what you're really against is laws. I get it now.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 16, 2008 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you're really not against violence, what you're really against is laws. I get it now.

Uh..no.

I am against violence, but I recognize there is no way to escape violence. So I am willing to reluctantly accept violence doled out in small denominations, as punishment for violence already incurred, as deterrent to others.

I am not against unenforceable laws. I am against enforced laws (which means backed up by violence) that go beyond retaliation for initiated violence.

I am not against unarmed governments. I am not against armed governments that uses the arms to only defend itself and nothing else. I am against armed governments that uses those arms to force citizens, through threat of violence, to live a certain way-- even when citizens haven't yet hurt anyone else and may never hurt anyone else.

As I understand it, you endorse armed governments and enforced laws that force innocent citizens to live a certain way. That way causes less violence in the long run, in your view, so the threat of violence is justified. To you.

It is not to me. Prevention is the job of community, not of armed governments and their enforced laws.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, if they freely and democratically choose those things, does that make them authoritarians ?

It certainly can, depending on what they choose. This recognition of this threat was really the subtle genius of our constitution. Its framers realized that the "tyranny of the majority" was potentially more dangerous than that of the monarchy the were rejecting. That's why they put so much effort into spelling out strict limits on how the majority can use its power.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do.
No... I don't see where you got that idea.

Well, this is sort of the same conversation I'm having with Rue - and as I said there, maybe I'm wrong about you guys. But you do seem to support all kinds of regulation and laws that force people into your way of thinking - not to protect people from force, but to use it coerce them into doing what you thing is right. Whether its educating their children the way you want, practicing medicine the way you want, doing business the way you want, it's all the same. You do make some pretense at defending these views as protecting some (usually abstract) victim. But when pressed it doesn't matter. Even when the only people being harmed by an activity are those involved, you still insist the government, or rather, the majority, should dictate to individuals how to go about living.

I'm saying that if there isn't a victim, if what I'm doing has no significant, unwelcome effect on others, then the government should leave me be. If you agree with that, then we are on the same page and either I've misinterpreted your views, in which case I apologize, or you've changed you're mind, even better.

Quote:
You're like CTS, you have this idee fixe that nothing can seem to dislodge and as a result you're not worth talking to. You are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying. So thanks for the dance, but we're not getting anywhere.

If you truly feel that way, you should definitely stop talking to me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:06 PM

SergeantX

If you believe the repubicans, the constitution only protects you (in very limited, specific circumstances) from the federal government. Anything else is fair game.

But even given an expansive non-repubican version of the constitution, nowhere do I see constitutional protections from public schools, public hospitals, public roads, public libraries, public utilities, public health services in general, public police, a public judicial system, or any other public resource or service, or indeed the taxes that pay for them.

So your argument that somehow the constitution protects you from the horrific abuse of democratically chosen and publicly funded services - laughable.

***************************************************************
And you really need to learn what it means to be an 'authoritarian'. Because - seriously - it doesn't mean - "anything and everything I disagree with".

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:12 PM

Quote:
So I am willing to reluctantly accept violence doled out in small denominations, as punishment for violence already incurred, as deterrent to others.

This, I believe, is your absolute first mistake and the reason why we'll never agree. Violence as a deterent to violence doesn't work. The truly violent are either strung out, or whack-jobs, or so caught up in the passion of the moment that the one thing they're NOT thinking about is the distant future, which for them is 10 minutes from the moment. Your system will absolutely not work the way you think it will.

And everything else in your post swirls around that first error. It would be refreshing indeed if you could write at least ONE post about government didn't dwell on violence. So as I said to Sarge, unless you can get your head unstuck from your fascination on violence, we'll never get anywhere with this discussion.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So your argument that somehow the constitution protects you from the horrific abuse of democratically chosen and publicly funded services - laughable.

Sadly, I have to concede that you're right on this point. Though I can't really laugh about it. The constitution is really only as good as the will of the people to follow it. Bush was right in that sense, it's just a piece of paper. The fact is, most people these days don't understand the need for strict limits on governmental power and are more than willing to scrap them in favor of bread and circuses.

So, you can gloat over sharing the majority opinion with these people, but it's hardly a compelling argument that it's good policy.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote:
The fact is, most people these days don't understand the need for strict limits on governmental

So does this make you an authoritarian? Because YOU certainly seem to know how people "should" lead their lives! Or merely an elitist?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:17 PM

The difference being that people might actually democratically, constitutionally and freely CHOOSE by consensus to have their government work for them and their society.

Your problem isn't with government - it's with ANY social consensus with which you happen to disagree. And that would be with anything other than a frontier existence cut off from anyone but your 'own' little family group, mediated in very small amounts through barter. You would feel just as constrained nearly everywhere.

You are anti-social.

But that doesn't make me an authoritarian. Nor does it make my positions unconstitutional. Nor does it mean that just because people chose not to structure the entire society to meet your little fantasy world that something is wrong with them.

And you trying to confuse the actual issues is a position not worthy of further reply.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:33 PM

Yeah Rue, I think "antisocial" is prolly the best description of/ reason for the arguments that we're getting.

How dare society tell them to drive on the right side of the road?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:52 PM

Nah... you guys are still missing the mark by a mile.

I'm against bullies. Doesn't matter whether it's one person lording it over the masses, or the angry mob persecuting the outlier.

What you can't get your head around is the basic concept of live-and-let-live. I really haven't got a problem with society consensus, I'm usually with them. Community is a necessary and enriching part of life. But it's not an excuse to push people around. Or at least I don't think it should be. As long as your plans allow for people to opt out, I'm fine with them.

But that's the part you can't tolerate. If you could, if you had some fundamental respect for those who happen to be in the minority, I doubt we'd have much to disagree about.

I think there's a basic disconnect between us, because you seem to be operating under the assumption that if it's the democratic will of the people, it's inevitably good. I've seen too much to buy that. At best, democracy buys us a more stable form of government. At worst, it gives us wholesale slaughter. It's certainly no guarantee of justice.

If I could get you to answer one question, straight up, it would be this: What's so wrong with letting people decide for themselves? Why must we, as SOP, come to some consensus and then force that 51% + opinion on everyone? Obviously there are situations where this isn't practical, but shouldn't we limit those as much as possible, and seek to increase freedom rather than curtail it?

I guess that's where my misunderstanding of your opinion lies. You really seem to have a basic desire for everyone to be on the same page, even when letting them decide for themselves would pose no burden on you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FLETCH2

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:23 PM

I think it's to do with amicability and fairness and it is as big a human psychological buggaboo as "Authoritarianism."

There are people that hate it when things are no fair, especially if someone has an undeserved advantage over someone else. It's a strange human flaw. In the UK at least people that are poor themselves with still reach into their pocket to give money to folks in a worse possition than themselves. On the other hand the idea of the loafer, the guy that gets money for doing nothing really p***** them off.

The advantage of collective action appart from the fact that it agrigates risk, is that it's seen as "fair" A regulation that applies to all doesn't discriminate against any one person over the interests of any other.

The hot button point for Siggy seems to be the idea that things are unfair, or that any one person gets an unearned advantage over another.

She's a romantic :)

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:44 PM

SergeantX

You are confused.

You equate government services as desired by a vast majority with bullying. And you do so even if people can 'decide by themselves' not to use those services.

You say you want people to be able to opt out - but only, apparently at your discretion on your issues. Let me give you and example - human sacrifice. Should people be able to opt out of the unbearable injustice of a prohibition on human sacrifice ? Or is that a larger social value that holds over everyone, in your mind ?

Now if there is one social value you won't negotiate, then there might be others. And the question becomes - where do you draw the line ?

Your problem is that while your reasoning mind says - yeah, I can understand drawing some socially indelible lines as a group, your personality says - but not any line I disagree with. Those I want to opt out of. And other people, well they can opt out of the things I don't care about, too. Which amounts to - no, you really don't see drawing any socially derived lines at all.

Push come to shove, the only society you accept and care about is all about - you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You equate government services as desired by a vast majority with bullying. And you do so even if people can 'decide by themselves' not to use those services.

Forcing people to pay for services that they don't want is a kind of bullying, yes.

Quote:
Let me give you and example - human sacrifice. Should people be able to opt out of the unbearable injustice of a prohibition on human sacrifice ?

I think I've been quite clear that the line where government intervention is appropriate is exactly this kind of thing. You keep trying to blur this issue and insist - quite dishonestly, because you know better - that I'm in favor of allowing such attrocities. If you really can't see a difference, it's fairly astounding. There's a big difference between telling people they can't kill for fun, and telling them that they'll be punished if they don't buy insurance.

Quote:
... your personality says - but not any line I disagree with. Those I want to opt out of. And other people, well they can opt out of the things I don't care about, too. Which amounts to - no, you really don't see drawing any socially derived lines at all.

Wow... I'll try again. The line isn't just whim. The line is where people are committing violence against others. That's where it's right and proper for the government to step in. That's where it's not just a matter of personal choice. But if that isn't going on, I don't think its right for any group, no matter how small or large, to force it's will on another.

Quote:
Push come to shove, the only society you accept and care about is all about - you.

You keep coming back to this, maybe because dressing me up like a "witch" makes it simple for you. And maybe simple is all you can handle. Or maybe personal insults are all that's left when your argument falls apart.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:40 PM

RUE

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:42 PM

SergeantX

I understand better than you think. You SAY you draw the line at 'violence'. But then, violence to you is whatever YOU don't agree with. Taxes ? VIOLENCE ! Seat belt laws ? VIOLENCE ! Anything that impinges on you in any way YOU don't personally agree with ? VIOLENCE !

I'm done here.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:02 PM

Quote:
Wow... I'll try again. The line isn't just whim. The line is where people are committing violence against others. That's where it's right and proper for the government to step in

Basically, YOU see the only role of government as mediating violence. What IS it with you Libertarians and violence anyway? Your brains just keep buzzing around that concept like a fly on meat.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2