Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:54 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
When you talk about nations you're talking about imaginary lines drawn in the sand which don't really exist. If someone attacks California then Florida is no more under attack than the USA is under attack when someone attacks France. In anarchism there's no such thing as national defense. There's defense of me and my property. If the north pole gets attacked, I don't pay for it because it doesn't affect me. If the west coast gets attacked, I don't pay for it because I'm on the east coast.

National defense is more of a preemptive measure, we don't wait for being invaded and then mobilize a citizen army, we have a standing army for deterrence. Do those who don't believe that we need it still have to pay for it?
Or another example. Will a power plant that pollutes the surrounding area be forced to compensate the residents of that area? I guess I am asking whether externalities are forcedly offset, since that wouldn't be voluntary.


If you don't pay for X then you don't get the direct benefits of X. Of course, if I buy cable TV and you stand on the street watching my TV through the window then you're indirectly benefiting off of me but so what? Why should I care as long as you aren't costing me anything?

As for externalities, if you're dumping toxic waste in the river and my dog sprouts an extra set of legs or I can demonstrate that your actions have somehow damaged me or my property then you're initiating force against my property.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:56 pm
The "purpose of the state" * is to foster tribalism as personified by the mistrust of outsiders.

* If indeed it can be said to have a "purpose" given your question presupposes a "purpose" and as such is a logical fallacy. I for one would simply argue that the net result of the actions of the state can be personified by the mistrust of outsiders, and not that there is an inherent "purpose".
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 05:36 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
If you don't pay for X then you don't get the direct benefits of X.


If you do get the benefits of X because it's a benefit to us all, do you have to pay for X?

Night Ripper wrote:
Of course, if I buy cable TV and you stand on the street watching my TV through the window then you're indirectly benefiting off of me but so what? Why should I care as long as you aren't costing me anything?


In the case of defense, free-riders are costing you. Because the fewer people the bill is divided amongst the more each of them has to pay. And what if they choose to not pay for it because they know that you will?

Night Ripper wrote:
As for externalities, if you're dumping toxic waste in the river and my dog sprouts an extra set of legs or I can demonstrate that your actions have somehow damaged me or my property then you're initiating force against my property.


How about positive externalities? Say you own a forest. Then keeping it for the beauty is no financial benefit, because people get that without paying for it. But if you knock it down to build tenements, you do get paid. So unless everybody living near that forest is forced to pay you a little bit for keeping it, all the forests get chopped down.
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 05:53 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip wrote:

Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government.
When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?


At its foundation, the authority of a government is legitimate because the people that form that government agree that it is legitimate. However, as man is a political animal, this happens a lot.

I think the proper role, in general, is to preserve a space for intellectual transmission and growth (should include civil rights, safety, needs, and wants).

More specifically, I think this would be better accomplished by redistributing wealth, legislating markets, limiting population growth, and shifting resources towards educational programs.
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 06:08 pm
Law was made to uphold morals, government to enforce, create, and change law.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 06:25 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
If you don't pay for X then you don't get the direct benefits of X.


If you do get the benefits of X because it's a benefit to us all, do you have to pay for X?

Night Ripper wrote:
Of course, if I buy cable TV and you stand on the street watching my TV through the window then you're indirectly benefiting off of me but so what? Why should I care as long as you aren't costing me anything?


In the case of defense, free-riders are costing you. Because the fewer people the bill is divided amongst the more each of them has to pay. And what if they choose to not pay for it because they know that you will?

Night Ripper wrote:
As for externalities, if you're dumping toxic waste in the river and my dog sprouts an extra set of legs or I can demonstrate that your actions have somehow damaged me or my property then you're initiating force against my property.


How about positive externalities? Say you own a forest. Then keeping it for the beauty is no financial benefit, because people get that without paying for it. But if you knock it down to build tenements, you do get paid. So unless everybody living near that forest is forced to pay you a little bit for keeping it, all the forests get chopped down.


This is getting boring. What it boils down to this, if you want to give your money away to pay for welfare programs or to pay for armies to invade countries then go for it. Have a blast. I respect your right to do that and I won't use violence to stop you. The only question is, will you offer me the same respect? If I disagree with you about welfare or wars, am I free not to give my money away or will you point a gun at my head and throw me in jail?

That's what you need to ask yourself. Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:08 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
This is getting boring. What it boils down to this, if you want to give your money away to pay for welfare programs or to pay for armies to invade countries then go for it. Have a blast. I respect your right to do that and I won't use violence to stop you. The only question is, will you offer me the same respect? If I disagree with you about welfare or wars, am I free not to give my money away or will you point a gun at my head and throw me in jail?

That's what you need to ask yourself. Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?


Well, I'm disappointed in your response.
If you can't defend your liberal ideology on a theoretical level, then authoritarianism is what you will get because it's more appealing to the masses.
Yes, people are willing to point a gun at you because you don't feel like giving your money away, in case you haven't noticed.
It's your job as a defender of liberal ideology to explain to them how their concerns about what you propose could be resolved. Just accusing them of being authoritarians isn't going to pull anyone to your side.
Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:28 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
Yes, people are willing to point a gun at you because you don't feel like giving your money away, in case you haven't noticed.


I didn't ask if "people" are willing. I asked if you, personally, are willing. If you are willing then this discussion is over because I don't talk to people that make threats of violence. If you aren't willing then you're an anarchist and welcome to the club.

Personally I don't care to defend my ideology against a bunch of "what ifs". I'm not an expert in economics or politics but I do know that I'm against the initiation of violence. I stick with that first principles and reason consistently from there to logical conclusions.

It's old hat to ask an anarchist things like "but how will we handle roads and blah blah". It's like asking an abolitionist "but how will ex-slaves get jobs?" Or asking someone that's against forced marriage "but how will my sister get married?" The answer is, I don't know and I don't really care. I just know that slavery is wrong, forced marriage is wrong and the initiation of violence wrong. Good luck finding someone to marry your sister.

If that's not a good enough answer for you then I'm disappointed in you for using "scare stories" and "what ifs" instead of addressing the real issue, the immorality of taxation which is nothing more than the initiation of violence against me and my property if I refuse to empty my pockets.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:51 pm
@Night Ripper,
No, I wouldn't initiate violence against you to take your property, nor would I employ the state to do it for me.

However, if the state forces you to pay the full price of your choices, is that 'initiation of violence'?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:33 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:

No, I wouldn't initiate violence against you to take your property, nor would I employ the state to do it for me.

However, if the state forces you to pay the full price of your choices, is that 'initiation of violence'?



When I enter into a mortgage I agree to certain terms and if I don't hold up my end of the agreement the bank is the right to take my house, by force if necessary. That's not the initiation of violence because I'm the one stealing the banks money by not paying my loan.

The same can't be said for the government. I never agreed to any terms, not explicitly and not even tacitly.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 11:13 am
@Night Ripper,
Well, people have different understandings of what 'initiation of violence' is. Who started the violence and who has justification to react is a value judgment. It's like figuring out who started a fight; both say the other one started it, and they just responded.

You say if the bank takes your house, it is really you who is initiating the violence, because you didn't pay your loan. But the bank voluntarily gave you that money, they are the ones who introduce active coercion into your transactions.
Therefore leftist anarchists would say that your actions do not excuse the banks use of force. Violence is initiated by those who actively use force first, having been stolen from is not an excuse to employ force. With such a system it wouldn't be possible to develop very sophisticated financial markets, because you only have the honor system to deal with people, but it would exclude all initiation of violence.

Those on the other extreme say that even taking advantage of another persons physical want is initiating violence. Employers can only make workers toil for the meager pay they get because they need the money to buy food. He is therefore forcing them to work for him. Not actively, but scarcity is doing it for him. And that is initiating violence.
Forcedly redistributing his income, or using state force to raise the wages, is not the initiation of violence, because he is the one stealing peoples labor by exploiting them. It would even be liberal to take such actions, because you aren't free if you are coerced by physical want.

So while I don't think too many people would support initiation of violence, they do have different understandings of what that is. And might support measures that to you see as the initiation of violence. While you support measure that others see as initiation of violence.
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 11:21 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:

Well, people have different understandings of what 'initiation of violence' is. Who started the violence and who has justification to react is a value judgment. It's like figuring out who started a fight; both say the other one started it, and they just responded.

You say if the bank takes your house, it is really you who is initiating the violence, because you didn't pay your loan. But the bank voluntarily gave you that money, they are the ones who introduce active coercion into your transactions.
Therefore leftist anarchists would say that your actions do not excuse the banks use of force. Violence is initiated by those who actively use force first, having been stolen from is not an excuse to employ force. With such a system it wouldn't be possible to develop very sophisticated financial markets, because you only have the honor system to deal with people, but it would exclude all initiation of violence.

Those on the other extreme say that even taking advantage of another persons physical want is initiating violence. Employers can only make workers toil for the meager pay they get because they need the money to buy food. He is therefore forcing them to work for him. Not actively, but scarcity is doing it for him. And that is initiating violence.
Forcedly redistributing his income, or using state force to raise the wages, is not the initiation of violence, because he is the one stealing peoples labor by exploiting them. It would even be liberal to take such actions, because you aren't free if you are coerced by physical want.

So while I don't think too many people would support initiation of violence, they do have different understandings of what that is. And might support measures that to you see as the initiation of violence. While you support measure that others see as initiation of violence.


People can (I am sure you know) use words to their own advantage, and can (I am sure you know) understand events in such a way that it takes account only of their own needs and wants, and completely dismisses as bogus the wants and needs of others. In other words, people are often biased. Therefore, that people have different understandings of things implies nothing whatsoever about the truth of their understandings. (I am sure there were people in Germany who believed that the Jews were the initiators of violence).
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 12:25 pm
@Mister Turnip,
The purpose of the state is to **** over anyone that is not in on the circle of power. Sure, it sounds good to say that a state represents the people that it rules over, but in reality, it only represents the people who have interests that are foundational to the society that the state allows.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 12:26 pm
@Jacques Maritain,
That is total bullshit. That is just what the state would want subjects to believe.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 12:32 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:

The purpose of the state is to **** over anyone that is not in on the circle of power. Sure, it sounds good to say that a state represents the people that it rules over, but in reality, it only represents the people who have interests that are foundational to the society that the state allows.


In fact, since in a democracy (not other States) the government rules by the consent of the governed, you are mistaken. And, again in fact, illegal immigrants, and others whose interests are not only not "foundational to society", what ever that really means, but whose interests are opposed to those who support (through taxes and other ways-for example, by obeying the law) the society, are gaining more and more power, and are being catered to by those in nominal power, and this is happening not only in the United States, but also in many of the Western Democracies, you appear to be demonstrably wrong.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 01:11 pm
The primary purpose of state is to protect the rich from the poor.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 01:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
people are often biased. Therefore, that people have different understandings of things implies nothing whatsoever about the truth of their understandings.


Oh yes, certainly there are many who are just plain wrong, i.e. their positions are at odds with the truth. But are you saying that there is a objective opinion of what initiation of violence is? If so, which of the three positions that I outlined in the last post is incorrect, and why?
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 01:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The primary purpose of state is to protect the rich from the poor.

I think the question was what it should be, in your opinion.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 01:35 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
people are often biased. Therefore, that people have different understandings of things implies nothing whatsoever about the truth of their understandings.


Oh yes, certainly there are many who are just plain wrong, i.e. their positions are at odds with the truth. But are you saying that there is a objective opinion of what initiation of violence is? If so, which of the three positions that I outlined in the last post is incorrect, and why?


I would think that if you are walking along, and minding your own business, and some thug comes along, and hits you on you head and steals your wallet, that if you reported that the thug has initiated the violence you would have reported something objective and true.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 01:48 pm
@Night Ripper,
Quote:
Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?


Doesn't "your" money derive from the existence of the state? How would you get money on your own?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 06:14:44