Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Anarchism, Authority, and Infinite Regress

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:09:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The authority argument was made by political philosophers like Hobbes (and in a somewhat different vein Locke too) where they said that without a common sovereign everyone would just fight each other and rape puppies and give babies beer and no one would play nice with anyone else. Besides the seemingly dubious assumptions regarding human nature, the solution to such a problem (common authority) lends itself to a serious problem.

If you start from the premise that people need governing (that they can't be left up to themselves for whatever such and such reasons) then the conclusion that there needs to be a single governing form or body to watch over everybody falls apart into an infinite regress. Consider the following proposition: "Normal citizens need to be watched over by city police and local government who need to be ultimately accountable to the state government who need to be ulimately accountable to the Federal government who need to be ultimately accountable to some World Governing Judiciary (ex. the United Nations.- Note: not all statists accept this last step).

The problem is that what holds the last step in the chain in check? Is there supposed to be some inter-planetary government and then some inter-galaxian government and so on and so on? Obviously this won't do so statists generally just end ambiguously at whatever the highest level of political organization is. Anarchy solves this with horizontal organization (as opposed to statism which is vertical).

For example, such and such communal organization or local business (depending on what school of anarchism one belongs to) offers defense services similar to those of a government. They do something shatty and are held in check by such and such mutual arbitration service (again arranged according to the specific anarchist school). Let's say such and such arbitration service is found to be guilty of say corruption or something. Not to worry, this particular service isn't the end all of arbitration services in the area. Others are allowed to develop so as to *actually* check the power of one of another.

Side note: I hope I'm wrong but I predict I'll get stupid comments like "why would they willingly submit to dat authority?" or "what if some dude had all the money and bought everything and enslaved us?". Hopefully we can stay on topic.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well If your premise is that *most* people are good, and there a few bad people that exist, then it would make sense to form a government that would find and punish these people, made up of a government that is less likely to be corrupted since it made by the people, who are mostly good.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:54:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well If your premise is that *most* people are good, and there a few bad people that exist, then it would make sense to form a government that would find and punish these people, made up of a government that is less likely to be corrupted since it made by the people, who are mostly good.

Then why the need for a middleman at all? If most people are good then where does the problem of allowing for genuinely power-balancing multicentric institutions to deal with these things?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:09:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The authority argument was made by political philosophers like Hobbes (and in a somewhat different vein Locke too) where they said that without a common sovereign everyone would just fight each other and rape puppies and give babies beer and no one would play nice with anyone else. Besides the seemingly dubious assumptions regarding human nature, the solution to such a problem (common authority) lends itself to a serious problem.

If you start from the premise that people need governing (that they can't be left up to themselves for whatever such and such reasons) then the conclusion that there needs to be a single governing form or body to watch over everybody falls apart into an infinite regress. Consider the following proposition: "Normal citizens need to be watched over by city police and local government who need to be ultimately accountable to the state government who need to be ulimately accountable to the Federal government who need to be ultimately accountable to some World Governing Judiciary (ex. the United Nations.- Note: not all statists accept this last step).

The problem is that what holds the last step in the chain in check? Is there supposed to be some inter-planetary government and then some inter-galaxian government and so on and so on? Obviously this won't do so statists generally just end ambiguously at whatever the highest level of political organization is. Anarchy solves this with horizontal organization (as opposed to statism which is vertical).

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:58:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:54:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well If your premise is that *most* people are good, and there a few bad people that exist, then it would make sense to form a government that would find and punish these people, made up of a government that is less likely to be corrupted since it made by the people, who are mostly good.

Then why the need for a middleman at all? If most people are good then where does the problem of allowing for genuinely power-balancing multicentric institutions to deal with these things?

well a defense agency and law creation entity just seems to follow the economic of scale model leading to a natural monopoly.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:03:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:58:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:54:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well If your premise is that *most* people are good, and there a few bad people that exist, then it would make sense to form a government that would find and punish these people, made up of a government that is less likely to be corrupted since it made by the people, who are mostly good.

Then why the need for a middleman at all? If most people are good then where does the problem of allowing for genuinely power-balancing multicentric institutions to deal with these things?

well a defense agency and law creation entity just seems to follow the economic of scale model leading to a natural monopoly.

(1) No real substantiation. Saying that would seem to happen doesn't really prove anything. (2) No one said singular. That's the whole point of polycentric law, i.e., the poly part. (3) You're basically saying that knowing what kind of shatty monopoly service we're going to have is somehow better than polycentric law where there's simply the possibility of such a thing occuring. (4) You're seemingly assuming away dis-economies of scale which limit organizations without recourse to involuntary modes of funding and consumer bases.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.

If your going to argue on empirical grounds, then the anarchy thought doesn't hold much ground.

Stating that *X* is bad therefore we should do *Y*, doesn't make sense, if *Y* is shown to be worse than *X*. We have some data that anarchy is worse If we look at data on failed nations (e.g. Somalia and other african nations) and compare their economic outcomes to liberal democracies.

This isn't necessary proof that anarchy won't work. Just that its stupid to argue on proving anarchy using empirical data
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.

Not really, right back at you.

The people have absolute control over who is allowed in the government, and it is rare that the government passes a law that the majority of Americans do not agree with (inb4 Obamacare,...yeah, still rare)...no matter how heinous the policy appears, you'll find that people did still support it at the time, including the decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to that the fact that greater political coverage means greater accountability....it's really quite ludicrous to believe that the Government is this (to borrow your style of insult) evilz thing thatiz taken ower freedumbs.

If you point to an aspect in which the government has the "upper hand", the solution is to equalize it....The people do have a reasonable leash on what the government can do. The check does exist.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:08:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:03:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:58:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:54:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well If your premise is that *most* people are good, and there a few bad people that exist, then it would make sense to form a government that would find and punish these people, made up of a government that is less likely to be corrupted since it made by the people, who are mostly good.

Then why the need for a middleman at all? If most people are good then where does the problem of allowing for genuinely power-balancing multicentric institutions to deal with these things?

well a defense agency and law creation entity just seems to follow the economic of scale model leading to a natural monopoly.

(1) No real substantiation. Saying that would seem to happen doesn't really prove anything.

Well it already did happen. You can *theoretically* start your own defense contract group and law making group. But good luck competing against the US.

(2) No one said singular. That's the whole point of polycentric law, i.e., the poly part.

Well how can one possibly set up businesses or contracts without knowing the rules and laws associated with it.

(3) You're basically saying that knowing what kind of shatty monopoly service we're going to have is somehow better than polycentric law where there's simply the possibility of such a thing occuring.

Well there are naturally monopolies that exist that are better than multiple services. For example, electricity grids. Facebook is a monopoly on social networking. Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil rigs.

(4) You're seemingly assuming away dis-economies of scale which limit organizations without recourse to involuntary modes of funding and consumer bases.

I realize that diseconomics of scale exist. However, its a natural monopoly, since in a fight between one defense firm against the other, the one with shear numbers win. Proof: Try taking out the US government. You won't stand a chance. You can't have polycentric law in the US since the US is too powerful for you to succeed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:23:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:10:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.

If your going to argue on empirical grounds, then the anarchy thought doesn't hold much ground.

I'm not doing that. I'm arguing from structural analysis and all that. Ike's claims actually should be analyzed empirically though since liberal democracy is the dominant form of political organization. Anarchism can't though because there's been no instance of full scale anarchist political organization in this industrial era.

Stating that *X* is bad therefore we should do *Y*, doesn't make sense, if *Y* is shown to be worse than *X*. We have some data that anarchy is worse If we look at data on failed nations (e.g. Somalia and other african nations) and compare their economic outcomes to liberal democracies.

Dude are we going to talk about Somalia? Seriously? K. Let's do the standard Somalian analysis that statists ignore everytime they bring it up. You can't compare a country to Somalia to a country like the U.S. and just assume that their modes of political organization are entirely causal to their situation.

Furthermore if we're speaking empirically the evidence overwhelmingly supports the anarchist position. Date compiled from before and after the dissolution of the Somalian government shows clear progress. Just because Somalia didn't go from a dirt poor socialist country to an uber rich anarchist country in a few years doesn't mean anarchism is unworkable. The U.S. is moving closer and closer to a form of corporatism. But just because it's the richest country in the world doesn't mean corporatism is better per se than capitalism.

Let's look at the numbers:

Index 1991 to 2011 (or latest)
Life expectancy 46 years to 50 years
Birth rate 46 to 44
Death rate 19 to 16
GDP per capita $210 to $600
Infant mortality 116 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births to 109 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births
Access to safe water 35% to 29%
Adult literacy 24% to 38%
(http://mises.org...)

Other literature supporting the point that Somalia is better off stateless then statist can be found here:

http://mises.org...
http://www.peterleeson.com... --- A paper by Peter Leeson who's better at explaining it then I am
http://www.cato-unbound.org... --- Also by Peter Leeson


This isn't necessary proof that anarchy won't work. Just that its stupid to argue on proving anarchy using empirical data

I'm not doing that. I'm dosproving Ike's naive liberal democracy "rule of the people" schtick.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:16:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.

Not really, right back at you.

The people have absolute control over who is allowed in the government, and it is rare that the government passes a law that the majority of Americans do not agree with (inb4 Obamacare,...yeah, still rare)...no matter how heinous the policy appears, you'll find that people did still support it at the time, including the decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to that the fact that greater political coverage means greater accountability....it's really quite ludicrous to believe that the Government is this (to borrow your style of insult) evilz thing thatiz taken ower freedumbs.

I'm not saying that every government is some totalitarian monstrosity that controls everything with zero accountability. I'm saying based on sober structural analysis it becomes clear that "checks and balances" aren't near as effective as statists make them out to be. Just saying we are the government or we control the government doesn't cut it and just because there exists some limit to how far the government can go before they're finally realed in doesn't mean their level of accountability is at all optimal.

If you point to an aspect in which the government has the "upper hand", the solution is to equalize it....The people do have a reasonable leash on what the government can do. The check does exist.

And if you're arguing from an equalizing perspective then multicentric political organizatin is the clear logical implication. You're saying "da people are a check broz" but I'm saying we can and should take it a step further since liberal democracy doesn't do enough to actually check the govment.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:17:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:08:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:03:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:

well a defense agency and law creation entity just seems to follow the economic of scale model leading to a natural monopoly.

(1) No real substantiation. Saying that would seem to happen doesn't really prove anything.

Well it already did happen. You can *theoretically* start your own defense contract group and law making group. But good luck competing against the US.

That's not my point. Just saying anarchist organizations aren't currently superior to statist ones doesn't really mean anything since we're aruging about the theoretical workings of anarchist political organization *presumably* when in an actual state of anarchy.

(2) No one said singular. That's the whole point of polycentric law, i.e., the poly part.

Well how can one possibly set up businesses or contracts without knowing the rules and laws associated with it.

What does that mean? Are you saying contractual rules or obligations can only be enforced by monocentric legal systems because of some ambiguous epistemic principle because I honestly don't know what that means.

(3) You're basically saying that knowing what kind of shatty monopoly service we're going to have is somehow better than polycentric law where there's simply the possibility of such a thing occuring.

Well there are naturally monopolies that exist that are better than multiple services. For example, electricity grids. Facebook is a monopoly on social networking. Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil rigs.

I'm asking why you think these specific types of services naturally lend themselves to monopolies i.e., defensive and arbitration services.

(4) You're seemingly assuming away dis-economies of scale which limit organizations without recourse to involuntary modes of funding and consumer bases.

I realize that diseconomics of scale exist. However, its a natural monopoly, since in a fight between one defense firm against the other, the one with shear numbers win. Proof: Try taking out the US government. You won't stand a chance. You can't have polycentric law in the US since the US is too powerful for you to succeed.

(A) The U.S. government isn't a defense firm in the sense advocated by anarchists. It has an involuntary source of profit and consumer base which naturally makes it more powerful than a voluntary institution. You're theorizing about conflicts between defense firms, firms without any of that. (B) You're assuming violence as the necessary or dominant response to conflict. However, in a state where you have to pay for your own fights by drawing out of voluntary funds we see that fighting becomes a bit less attractive. In all likelihood pre-established protocols for conflicting claims would be established. You're applying State behavioral analysis nto defense firms which as I have shown s faulty. (C) Again, I'm not talking about defense firms within a State. I'm talking about in a state of anarchy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:38:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:26:57 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:16:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:06:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:00:37 PM, 000ike wrote:

The solution is circular (mutual) authority much like the model of America's checks and balances between the 3 federal branches. A democratic body of people control and restrain the government through elections, protest, and access to public office...and the government in turn establishes laws for the people. So, right off the bat your position is unfounded.

Not really. Your trying to argue that the levels of authority are in some possible way near equal i.e., government "allowing" people to protest their actions is somehow equal to controlling the police, courts, military and the sh1t ton of other services the government has monopolistic control over. Dis seems to be that naive liberal democracy thinking. It was kewl for people like Locke and Paine to theorize like this because they didn't have 229 years of American democracy to disprove them. But come on, this isn't pre-democracy where we don't have experience proving that doesn't work.

Not really, right back at you.

The people have absolute control over who is allowed in the government, and it is rare that the government passes a law that the majority of Americans do not agree with (inb4 Obamacare,...yeah, still rare)...no matter how heinous the policy appears, you'll find that people did still support it at the time, including the decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to that the fact that greater political coverage means greater accountability....it's really quite ludicrous to believe that the Government is this (to borrow your style of insult) evilz thing thatiz taken ower freedumbs.

I'm not saying that every government is some totalitarian monstrosity that controls everything with zero accountability. I'm saying based on sober structural analysis it becomes clear that "checks and balances" aren't near as effective as statists make them out to be. Just saying we are the government or we control the government doesn't cut it and just because there exists some limit to how far the government can go before they're finally realed in doesn't mean their level of accountability is at all optimal.

The onus is on you to demonstrate how such inadequate checks and balances are intrinsic to the existence of a state, and can't simply be amended with further reduction in state power....or give all people the power of national initiative, and repeal laws that are obviously too unpopular....or recall elected officials that are acting out of reason...if most people are content with the current establishment, then you have 0 justification for attacking it. If the minority is still unhappy, it can convert itself into the majority through argumentation or allow their beliefs to become the majority through time, or they could leave the country.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:26:57 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:16:36 PM, 000ike wrote:

Not really, right back at you.

The people have absolute control over who is allowed in the government, and it is rare that the government passes a law that the majority of Americans do not agree with (inb4 Obamacare,...yeah, still rare)...no matter how heinous the policy appears, you'll find that people did still support it at the time, including the decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to that the fact that greater political coverage means greater accountability....it's really quite ludicrous to believe that the Government is this (to borrow your style of insult) evilz thing thatiz taken ower freedumbs.

I'm not saying that every government is some totalitarian monstrosity that controls everything with zero accountability. I'm saying based on sober structural analysis it becomes clear that "checks and balances" aren't near as effective as statists make them out to be. Just saying we are the government or we control the government doesn't cut it and just because there exists some limit to how far the government can go before they're finally realed in doesn't mean their level of accountability is at all optimal.

The onus is on you to demonstrate how such inadequate checks and balances are intrinsic to the existence of a state, and can't simply be amended with further reduction in state power....or give all people the power of national initiative, and repeal laws that are obviously too unpopular....or recall elected officials that are acting out of reason...if most people are content with the current establishment, then you have 0 justification for attacking it.

Kind of a cop out but okay. Public choice theory does that pretty well. Incentive structures inherent in democracies lend themselves to rational ignorance of citizenry, corruption of politicians, bedding of corporate interests with government, and overall just ogligarchy. Basically, the usefulness of a single vote is nil so the amount of time it would take for the average person to educate themselves on all the issues is more than what is affordable for most people. So take a random person off the street and ask them who's okay'd more drone killings, Obama or Bush and they'll likely say Bush. So rational ignorance of those who you think are controlling the government is highly likely.

Next politicians. In a democracy, a large focus is on re-election. Even a politician who actually wants to help (the amount of which in Washington I could count on one hand) needs to get re-elected. There are a few ways to do this, the most profitable of which is to take funds from special interests (usually corporate interests). Like business A wants a 100,000 subsidy so they spend 10,000 on your campaign. Since the more well funded politician wins a majority of the time, it's a pretty even matching of interests. Business A gets its subsidy for a minscule cost and politician A gets reelected while giving favoritism to big business. We see examples of this everywhere. The largest Presidential campaign supporters in the previous election were those who were the recipients of the most recent government favoritism i.e., JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs (it's fun to count how many former Goldman Sachs lobbyists and CEO's serve under the Obama administration), Citibank, etc.

Notice these are due to incentive structures inherent and necessary for democracy. For voters it means the severing of costs from payouts and being part of a multi-million strong organization which is a necessary reality of government. For politicians it's the fact that they're elected not by how well they serve the interests of ignorant voters, but how many of them he gets to vote for him and how much money he has to spend on the campaign. And of course business interests get a pretty big amount of influence in exchange for relatively little costs. Just saying we should repeal bad laws and only have good laws doesn't come close to fixing the problems inherent at the base of the State.

More writing on the issue can be found here if you're interested.
http://www.econlib.org...
(The video is a bit more focused on the relation of PCT to market failure arguments but relevant nonetheless)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org...

If the minority is still unhappy, it can convert itself into the majority through argumentation or allow their beliefs to become the majority through time, or they could leave the country.

(A) Love it or leave it is a cop out. I could say the same of the Jews during Hitler's reign. But obviously that's absurd so there must be some intellectual error in the argument. (B) Anarchists don't want to become the majority to control everyone else. They just don't want an institution running society that necessitates such a barbaric process.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 6:05:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:56:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:26:57 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 5:16:36 PM, 000ike wrote:

Not really, right back at you.

The people have absolute control over who is allowed in the government, and it is rare that the government passes a law that the majority of Americans do not agree with (inb4 Obamacare,...yeah, still rare)...no matter how heinous the policy appears, you'll find that people did still support it at the time, including the decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to that the fact that greater political coverage means greater accountability....it's really quite ludicrous to believe that the Government is this (to borrow your style of insult) evilz thing thatiz taken ower freedumbs.

I'm not saying that every government is some totalitarian monstrosity that controls everything with zero accountability. I'm saying based on sober structural analysis it becomes clear that "checks and balances" aren't near as effective as statists make them out to be. Just saying we are the government or we control the government doesn't cut it and just because there exists some limit to how far the government can go before they're finally realed in doesn't mean their level of accountability is at all optimal.

The onus is on you to demonstrate how such inadequate checks and balances are intrinsic to the existence of a state, and can't simply be amended with further reduction in state power....or give all people the power of national initiative, and repeal laws that are obviously too unpopular....or recall elected officials that are acting out of reason...if most people are content with the current establishment, then you have 0 justification for attacking it.

Kind of a cop out but okay. Public choice theory does that pretty well. Incentive structures inherent in democracies lend themselves to rational ignorance of citizenry, corruption of politicians, bedding of corporate interests with government, and overall just ogligarchy. Basically, the usefulness of a single vote is nil so the amount of time it would take for the average person to educate themselves on all the issues is more than what is affordable for most people. So take a random person off the street and ask them who's okay'd more drone killings, Obama or Bush and they'll likely say Bush. So rational ignorance of those who you think are controlling the government is highly likely.

Next politicians. In a democracy, a large focus is on re-election. Even a politician who actually wants to help (the amount of which in Washington I could count on one hand) needs to get re-elected. There are a few ways to do this, the most profitable of which is to take funds from special interests (usually corporate interests). Like business A wants a 100,000 subsidy so they spend 10,000 on your campaign. Since the more well funded politician wins a majority of the time, it's a pretty even matching of interests. Business A gets its subsidy for a minscule cost and politician A gets reelected while giving favoritism to big business. We see examples of this everywhere. The largest Presidential campaign supporters in the previous election were those who were the recipients of the most recent government favoritism i.e., JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs (it's fun to count how many former Goldman Sachs lobbyists and CEO's serve under the Obama administration), Citibank, etc.

Notice these are due to incentive structures inherent and necessary for democracy. For voters it means the severing of costs from payouts and being part of a multi-million strong organization which is a necessary reality of government. For politicians it's the fact that they're elected not by how well they serve the interests of ignorant voters, but how many of them he gets to vote for him and how much money he has to spend on the campaign. And of course business interests get a pretty big amount of influence in exchange for relatively little costs. Just saying we should repeal bad laws and only have good laws doesn't come close to fixing the problems inherent at the base of the State.

More writing on the issue can be found here if you're interested.
http://www.econlib.org...
(The video is a bit more focused on the relation of PCT to market failure arguments but relevant nonetheless)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org...

If the minority is still unhappy, it can convert itself into the majority through argumentation or allow their beliefs to become the majority through time, or they could leave the country.

(A) Love it or leave it is a cop out. I could say the same of the Jews during Hitler's reign. But obviously that's absurd so there must be some intellectual error in the argument. (B) Anarchists don't want to become the majority to control everyone else. They just don't want an institution running society that necessitates such a barbaric process.

Alright I concede, you clearly have a more comprehensive view on the subject. Though, you may not take my concession to mean that I have now renounced statism. I have merely removed the conviction with which I defend it. So long as the presence of a government will make my life and most peoples lives happier in some form, I will support it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 6:10:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 6:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:

Alright I concede, you clearly have a more comprehensive view on the subject. Though, you may not take my concession to mean that I have now renounced statism. I have merely removed the conviction with which I defend it. So long as the presence of a government will make my life and most peoples lives happier in some form, I will support it.

You'll come around. I'm convined the fact that you conceded a subject you haven't looked into enough rather then arguing out of your arse for 20 pages means you're vulerable to changing your opinion. Same thing happened to me. But I suppose there's nothing left to post here unless DK responds.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:17:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually the state governments are accountable to the people and the federal government is accountable to both the people and the states.
The federal government solves disputes between states.

Also if government had the 1 way hierarchy you claimed the regress would end with a world government. At least untill space colonization begins.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle