Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ADOL World (My Ideal society/governmt)

ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:31:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok so I've said enough around here against different social structures that some people (e.x. MysticEgg) are wondering what the hec I do believe in.

Well I do believe in something, a government which means I am not an anarchist (you know according to the actual dictionary definition of anarchy).

I guess what I would call it would be "ethocracy." It is in essence a constitution which provides a complete list of negative rights and a guide to an unlimited interpretation and application of these rights.

I will contrast this with something like the U.S. constitution which does not claim to list all rights indeed specifically says it shall not be construed to deny any other rights. It has no absolute rights, liberty is only safe so long the government can't be bothered to follow due process and perhaps make a law for that purpose.

The constitution of this ethocracy would have a complete absolute definition of natural human rights. It would specifically say there are no rights that cannot be derived from those specified.

This reflects my belief in objective morals. I do not fear that morality can become obsolete.

The fundamental right is the right to liberty.

The first tier of derivative rights is:

Right to freedom from avoidable harm

Right to freedom from fraud

Right to pursue value [consistent with all other rights]

The second tier of derivative rights is:

Right to property. [not land]

Right to free movement.

Right to free speech.

Right to free association.

(there will be more specific tiers, it could get quite long)

Alright only got 6000 characters (and I don't really want to do more without specific questions)

There are two separate functions of this government.

1. To pass laws.

2. To facilitate social action.

These two functions are different in so many ways that I can't imagine how it was ever thought to be a good idea to conflate them. First off some context, to make the system practical in the way I describe it a computer system is necessary. This system is essentially just a means for the citizen to participate in government.

Let's start with law. Law (or a modification thereof) is suggested by anyone. It gains support by being found and 'voted for' by any citizen. Every law must be accompanied with a justification section. This justification section must demonstrate how the law protects some right. It must also analyze the law and show that no contradiction with any right can be easily found.

There are two 'trials' before the proposal becomes law.

First is the popular support trial. This will effect a key characteristic of laws in this government namely that they will expire unless reaffirmed. There are two pertinent measurements to look at. The %support is the number that voted for the proposition of those who voted at all, and the %voters is the percentage of the population that voted on the proposition.

A) Weak law, 25% voters, 50.001% support. Expires every year.
B) Standard law, 50% voters, 75% support. Expires in ten years.
C) Fundamental law, 75% voters, 90% support. Expires in a century (unless the thresholds in B abolish it)

Modifications (but not nullification) to these laws may be passed separately such that you might have a fundamental law against murder where you have the punishments as standard or weak law.

Second is the judicial (or legal) trial. Two panels of judges evaluate the justification section of the law for logical validity. They only have the power to stop the law. If they consider the justification insufficient a precedent is set but only for the justification. The same law may be passed with different justification. This is the panel's only chance to stop the law. The judges are elected but offset by five years (they elect them five years before they start to operate).

Since every law must attempt to protect a right all laws will necessarily be the identification of a violation of rights which is rendered punishable. Things like "marriage law" simply can't exist. The question of marriage is not of violation of rights, there are no punishments. In this ethocracy such things are not law, they are social actions.

Laws are universal throughout the government. Rights are equal, laws should thus be equal as well. There is nothing localized about morality. You can see by implication many more things which don't belong in law.

The other function is social action. What is social action? This is not related to morality, this is not "someone has done wrong, and the eyes of the ranger are upon him." These are things people do best together, on a large scale, and separate from profit motive.

An excellent example would be building a bridge. However even hiring a police force is an example. Notice that enforcing the law is not the same as passing the law. The law describes what is illegal and what may be legally done to prevent it. The police are a social action to enforce the laws.

So how do these work? It starts much the same way as law, somebody suggests it; it gains support. However that's where the similarity ends.

Social actions can be (and almost always should be) localized. There can be a social action for just London, or just New York or just California or just a town of 100. There can be no localized law.

The second critical fact about social actions is that the 'votes' are in fact pledges of support. It does not need to be money but probably would be in most cases. The writers of the social action (probably with the help of government agencies meant to help people write these things correctly) define what minimum support is required. When that support is pledged the social action 'passes' it doesn't matter who supported it or how many people did so. BECAUSE social actions are not law and they cannot contradict law, they cannot violate rights.

If a billionaire wanted to he could suggest and fund his own social action to build a orphanage. However the point is more when 30,000 citizens want a fire department and the easiest most corruption free way of getting one is passing a social action where the pledge enough support to make that fire department exist.

This system allows for whatever structures people may so desire no matter how complex, general or localized. All without interfering with the morality encoded in the law, all without being given the power to violate rights.

Let's take homosexual marriage because it is a perfect example of the superiority of this system. What would marriage be under ethocracy? Well it wouldn't be law. Not getting married doesn't violate rights. What now counts as 'marriage' would be a social action. Probably a large network of people who promise to abide by certain standards of treatment and privilege towards couples. Well when homosexuals come along it's pretty simple. Look at the definition of marriage in the original social action. If it excludes homosexuals you make another social action that does the same thing. If it doesn't and people freak out you split it up next time around. This allows people to support what they want (which is of course the only moral way to support).

There are no representatives (people can represent themselves). There are executives and judges. All public funding is handled through the finite and continuously reaffirmed consent of the social action system. There is no taxation.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:52:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So what would law and society look like?

Can't stop immigration, as immigration doesn't violate any rights.

Stuff like speed limits and wearing clothes are 'private' regulations. i.e. people create a 'standard decency' set of regulations or something and require that for roads and business. Not absolute, but good enough that I doubt people would be streaking (although they could very easily make a streaking town with enough support). This also takes care of that old (and very silly) free speech shouting fire in a crowded theater problem.

So pretty much anything that is currently law that you couldn't make happen as a law under ethocracy, think about how to make it a standard regulation (deriving authority from property rights). If you can't, oppression needs to die.

Land? I did not cover claiming land, but essentially land claims would be merely social convention, something you sign up for in a social contract. By social contract I literally mean social contract. Nothing imaginary, and certainly nothing that changes the universality or absolutism of the law. This would be the contract you sign so you get to use that computer system and have people respect your land claims. True you don't have to respect theirs until you do sign; but you still need to respect their property.

The ability to appeal to courts in civil matters could also (morally) be contingent on signing the contract.

If you really wanted you could make it so anyone signing the contract had to shun people who didn't, but I think that's a really bad idea and pointless too. The greatest advantage of this system is allowing people to subscribe to whatever social elements they find most important. Attempting to bundle things up again is going in the wrong direction, forcing a fracturing of society instead of allowing it to remain unified yet diverse.

Environment? If long term destruction of natural resources could be proven it would be punishable under the right to pursue value. If poisons could be proven to be at harmful levels due to some activity, releasing more than X of the poison based on the locality can be banned.

National parks? As an absolute, kinda out the window. You can claim land but you can't stop the real outsiders from building on it. Most people will have to respect the claims though.

Economics? I suspect it would be rather similar to how it is now, just without the loads of economic regulations and crap that have been ruining the ideal for a century now. However no taxes. No enforced currency. Anarchist like Wocambs can try to make whatever work, the social action system would no doubt be invaluable if they have a chance. But private property is in the system to stay, and no community can (legally) reject the law or its enforcement.

Sex? Well let's get this one out of the way. You can have sex with animals because the justification requirement would prevent laws against victimless crimes. True the rights I enumerated above are human rights, but there would be animal rights in the final version. No opportunity for arbitrary condemnation in any case. Under free association you should be able to have sex with just about anyone and anything that consents where there is no inherent significant risk of harm or that risk is understood and accepted by the other party.

Incest, polygamy, cars... whatever.

Religion? Religious people can be religious... within the law.

Race? Unmentioned and unimportant in the Constitution or law. Social actions may discriminate. Laws against discrimination cannot be justified. People have the right to be complete a$$holes I'm afraid.

Ask if you think I forgot something.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:57:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok, so how does this tie into objectivism (my self-proclaimed philosophy)? First off two disclaimers. This is how I understand the philosophy, I may well present these ideas in a different format or vocabulary than other objectivist. I don't believe there are any true contradictions but you may find some who don't care for the way I put it. Second, this philosophy was first fully identified by Ms. Ayn Rand in relatively recent history, but it's components have been floating around for thousands of years and formed an implicit basis for pretty much every other philosophy that ever 'worked.' Some of you may think this is about Rand but it's not really, she would be the first one to tell you not to trust authority without reason.

Ms. Rand put a great deal of work condensing the philosophy into an efficient short piece of Rhetoric which is related in Atlas Shrugged near the end. It is Galt's radio address. Admittedly this speech is NOT a purely rational or philosophical speech. It is emotionally charged and uses many rhetorical devices. But it still contains the intellectual essence of objectivism as well as a good feel for its 'spirit.' I am linking to a youtube playlist where this entire speech is read out loud with pertinent contemporary insertions, nice music, and visuals.

For those who have want to 'get it' 'fast' watch this all the way through (it doesn't really take that long in the whole scheme of things).

https://www.youtube.com......

Some notes I have in case any of you are wondering how in the world I cram my sexual orientation into my world view:

In Ep. 4 "The Standard of Morality" 3:00 some assumptions are made about non-human animals that are premature to say the least. It would be best if you think about insets or jellyfish as opposed to higher vertebrates which have been proven to do quite a bit of learning about what is good and evil for them. Whether or not man is the only being with these qualities doesn't really matter to the rest.

Ep. 7 "Emotions" 9:50 says 'the trader does not give the values of his spirit, his love, his friendship, his esteem except in payment and in trade for human virtues.' The name "human virtues" is accurate in that they are most certainly virtues proper to humans, however they are not only human virtues. If we should see them in non-humans they ought to be no less valuable and no less deserving of our love, friendship, and esteem.

Ep. 15 "The Mystics of Muscle" 7:05 implies that your philosophical values create your sexual desires. Sorry I'm afraid Ms. Rand was just wrong about that. A reasonable induction since you are bound to be more attracted to people you love than otherwise, but I have direct evidence that philosophy doesn't directly correlate with sexual desires.

So now for my own words. Objectivism is reason in epistemology and liberty in ethics. Its only social imperative is interaction by consent and private property. And hey look the 'ethocracy' government agrees.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 2:12:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lets get super analytic and make A.J. Ayer proud.

"The fundamental right is the right to liberty

How is this to be understood? Two components:
1. The right to
2. Liberty

The right to X means, I can only imagine, that either I am justified in doing X, or that other people are obligated to provide X. Liberty is the freedom from constraints (right?).

Therefore, we have two options:
1. I am justified in being at liberty
2. Others are obligated to provide me with liberty

#1 is fairly nonsensical and pointless, so I can only presume you mean #2. Therefore - whence cometh such obligation, or such a demand upon others?

A bizarre objection for an existential anarchist to make, perhaps, but have fun with it. Oh, and I am being serious.

I suppose I better criticise the state. With government, you have power. With dumb interpretations of 'liberty', you have the potential to make laws against it. With elected judges, there is every likelihood that they could be bought, through 'favours' etc. The electorate can be bought too, as you can see from US elections. Furthermore, the mass media, when motivated by profit, present news which is profitable, nothing more, and so providing a powerful tool with which to 'manufacture' consent.

Oh, and to continue from what above, we already have a precedent for restricting liberty in your theory - 'standards of decency'. Essentially relativistic, this permits all kinds of oppression, I would imagine. If everything can be owned, and ownership grants complete autonomy in lawmaking, then surely we would see corporate feudal states popping up?

On Galt, I would have to say that he suffers from the bizarre delusion that it is the poor people who are the powerful ones. I mean really, complain about taxation all you like, Galt, but it's not so bad when it bails out your bank, educates and heals your workers, builds roads for you, protects your international interests for you, and protects your business from theft and strikes. Sure, some of it goes to the poor, but you want consumers, you don't want legions of the destitute protesting.

Ayn Rand, I think, was not in the "Big Club" George Carlin spoke of.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 7:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm quite familiar with Miss Rand, and your society, in my opinion, displays the exact same glaring flaws that hers did. It ignores a HUGE part of both society and government: the true nature of power, the intransigence of law, and the mortality of men. Anyone can design a perfect system, the tricky part is rigging it so it doesn't collapse into something horrific. Rand acknowledged this shortcoming when pushed on it, and basically said that it was a problem for someone else to solve once her philosophy caught on. I think that, until it is addressed, objectivism faces an insurmountable stumbling block which most people will on some level understand, even if they do not recognize its exact nature.

For example: how are actions enforced? What forces judges to follow the letter of the law? What stops force from being abused? As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." That can never be taken for granted.; what happens when it ceases to be true? Can you account for an influx of culturally aberrant immigrants, or a drastic shift in the winds of public opinion? Such events can topple systems based on democratic enforcement like a stack of cards, and the collapse is seldom bloodless.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 7:48:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 2:12:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Lets get super analytic and make A.J. Ayer proud.

"The fundamental right is the right to liberty

How is this to be understood? Two components:
1. The right to
2. Liberty

The right to X means, I can only imagine, that either I am justified in doing X, or that other people are obligated to provide X. Liberty is the freedom from constraints (right?).

Therefore, we have two options:
1. I am justified in being at liberty
2. Others are obligated to provide me with liberty

#1 is fairly nonsensical and pointless, so I can only presume you mean #2. Therefore - whence cometh such obligation, or such a demand upon others?

A bizarre objection for an existential anarchist to make, perhaps, but have fun with it. Oh, and I am being serious.

Orrr.... you have a right to be free from interference. Others are obligated to not interfere. 'Provide' conveys the impression of a positive duty. The only duties are negative.

I suppose I better criticise the state. With government, you have power. With dumb interpretations of 'liberty', you have the potential to make laws against it. With elected judges, there is every likelihood that they could be bought, through 'favours' etc. The electorate can be bought too, as you can see from US elections. Furthermore, the mass media, when motivated by profit, present news which is profitable, nothing more, and so providing a powerful tool with which to 'manufacture' consent.

Coming from an anarchist it's a bit of a pot calling the kettle black. I have no doubt that should you ever try to bring your vision of anarchist society to the point I have brought this one you would realize you do need rules and people to enforce them. If that is "power" there will never be peace or productivity without it.

Oh, and to continue from what above, we already have a precedent for restricting liberty in your theory - 'standards of decency'. Essentially relativistic, this permits all kinds of oppression, I would imagine.

You imagine too far. It is a defense of liberty, allowing people to refuse interaction and entry if people don't follow their rules.

If everything can be owned, and ownership grants complete autonomy in lawmaking, then surely we would see corporate feudal states popping up?

You could see very large companies creating compounds with odd regulations in the compound. You could not see corporations making law for the people who live around those compounds.

On Galt, I would have to say that he suffers from the bizarre delusion that it is the poor people who are the powerful ones.

I am going to copy paste my question from the other thread. The language he uses to describe forces of evil in the world is not very complimentary; what in your mind connected it with poor people?

Do you realize also that most of the world is democracy since 125 - 200 years ago? The power is in the hands of the people, trying to absolve them of responsibility is simple denial.

I mean really, complain about taxation all you like, Galt, but it's not so bad when it bails out your bank, educates and heals your workers, builds roads for you, protects your international interests for you, and protects your business from theft and strikes.

I could say the same thing about corporations. I don't think you would entertain the fact that corporations make lots of fancy things as justification for lying to and enslaving people (and I mean really lying and really enslaving).

By the way Galt did not own a company, he worked for a company and then quit.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 7:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 2:12:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
On Galt, I would have to say that he suffers from the bizarre delusion that it is the poor people who are the powerful ones. I mean really, complain about taxation all you like, Galt, but it's not so bad when it bails out your bank, educates and heals your workers, builds roads for you, protects your international interests for you, and protects your business from theft and strikes. Sure, some of it goes to the poor, but you want consumers, you don't want legions of the destitute protesting.

Your other points are good, but this tired old straw man undermines you. I'm guessing that you just read Galt's speech, and not the entire novel. The speech uses some bizarre shorthand (which I'm not a fan of) that, without the context provided by the novel, seems to indict the poor. This isn't the case at all. The villains in Atlas Shrugged are a group of incompetent, oligarchical 'good old boys' who use the state to prop up their immense conglomerates and crush more innovative competition. The poor are sometimes cast in a tragic, sympathetic light, other times in a harsh, critical one. For example, one sympathetic character is a poor but bright and optimistic store clerk who marries one of the chief villains, a president of a railroad, who abuses her, leading to her eventual suicide. Their treatment is more nuanced than the book's apparently illiterate critics make it out to be.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 8:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 7:40:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I'm quite familiar with Miss Rand, and your society, in my opinion, displays the exact same glaring flaws that hers did.

Well in true objectivist style I am going to take you literally (and imply you get real specific if you want to carry on).

It ignores a HUGE part of both society and government: the true nature of power

What is the true nature of power?

the intransigence of law

What is wrong with intransigent law? (Even though this seems like a really silly thing to say since I have never seen expiration built into a system before)

and the mortality of men.

There was nothing about immorality in there.

Anyone can design a perfect system, the tricky part is rigging it so it doesn't collapse into something horrific.

Presumably if it collapses into something horrific it's not perfect.

Rand acknowledged this shortcoming when pushed on it, and basically said that it was a problem for someone else to solve once her philosophy caught on.

Well here I am trying to solve it I guess :p

I think that, until it is addressed, objectivism faces an insurmountable stumbling block which most people will on some level understand, even if they do not recognize its exact nature.

Do you presume any other philosophy has been implemented politically? The history of government since the fall of feudalism has been compromise.

For example: how are actions enforced?

They aren't enforced, they have nothing to do with force.

What forces judges to follow the letter of the law?

Nothing, kinda of like right now :p

What stops force from being abused?

Only people's dedication to follow the Constitution and what it stands for. Again, kind of like right now except the new Constitution gives absolutely no quarter to those who would twist it's meaning and does not permit immorality when honestly interpreted.

As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." That can never be taken for granted.; what happens when it ceases to be true?

Bad stuff.

Can you account for an influx of culturally aberrant immigrants, or a drastic shift in the winds of public opinion? Such events can topple systems based on democratic enforcement like a stack of cards, and the collapse is seldom bloodless.

Have you seen Star Trek Voyager? In the pilot, there is a being called the caretaker. This government is not the caretaker. Anyone who claims to have a government system that can 'handle drastic shifts in the winds of public opinion' no matter what that opinion may be are liars.

If the people decide tomorrow to ignore the Constitution and the law they can do it. It's just words.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 8:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 8:03:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/12/2014 7:40:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I'm quite familiar with Miss Rand, and your society, in my opinion, displays the exact same glaring flaws that hers did.

Well in true objectivist style I am going to take you literally (and imply you get real specific if you want to carry on).

It ignores a HUGE part of both society and government: the true nature of power

What is the true nature of power?

It's incredibly complicated. I can only recommend reading which addresses it, in particular Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hoffer, etc.

the intransigence of law

What is wrong with intransigent law? (Even though this seems like a really silly thing to say since I have never seen expiration built into a system before)

Ugh, that was a typo. I meant transience, and somehow typed intransigent.

and the mortality of men.

There was nothing about immorality in there.

Mortality. The fact that men die and new ones take over. It's a big problem in government, perhaps the biggest one.

Anyone can design a perfect system, the tricky part is rigging it so it doesn't collapse into something horrific.

Presumably if it collapses into something horrific it's not perfect.

Everything collapses into something horrific eventually. My point is that people build systems that are ideologically perfect yet structurally unstable, and they collapse quickly and horribly.

Rand acknowledged this shortcoming when pushed on it, and basically said that it was a problem for someone else to solve once her philosophy caught on.

Well here I am trying to solve it I guess :p

I think that, until it is addressed, objectivism faces an insurmountable stumbling block which most people will on some level understand, even if they do not recognize its exact nature.

Do you presume any other philosophy has been implemented politically? The history of government since the fall of feudalism has been compromise.

Objectivism as an ethical philosophy does not face this stumbling block. But it does have an explicitly political dimension which cannot be ignored. Most other philosophies are pretty apolitical, or if they are political seek to influence politics rather than completely direct it. Objectivism says 'this is the only morally proper form of government.'

For example: how are actions enforced?

They aren't enforced, they have nothing to do with force.

So what happens when several people build a bridge, paying for it under the understanding that it is for their exclusive use, and a bunch of people who didn't pay come along and use it? How are fraud and trespassing dealt with?

What forces judges to follow the letter of the law?

Nothing, kinda of like right now :p

Well, that's not a really flattering comparison =P And we do have checks and balances now, it would be even worse without them. Judges being elected democratically pretty much ensures that the meaning of the law will shift on the winds of public opinion.

What stops force from being abused?

Only people's dedication to follow the Constitution and what it stands for. Again, kind of like right now except the new Constitution gives absolutely no quarter to those who would twist it's meaning and does not permit immorality when honestly interpreted.

The Constitution sets up a set of mutually antagonistic relationships between competing groups of powerful citizens in order to make it more difficult to quickly alter the way in which law is made, interpreted, and enforced. True, if people stopped believing completely in it the Constitution would cease to be effective. But the structure of government prevents any one part of it from being ignored out of hand. Twisting its meaning is a lengthy process because of this.

As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." That can never be taken for granted.; what happens when it ceases to be true?

Bad stuff.

Yes, well, would a more structurally complicated, yet less ideologically pure government not have less of a potential for such catastrophic collapse? And, if so, why choose yours?

Can you account for an influx of culturally aberrant immigrants, or a drastic shift in the winds of public opinion? Such events can topple systems based on democratic enforcement like a stack of cards, and the collapse is seldom bloodless.

Have you seen Star Trek Voyager? In the pilot, there is a being called the caretaker. This government is not the caretaker. Anyone who claims to have a government system that can 'handle drastic shifts in the winds of public opinion' no matter what that opinion may be are liars.

If the people decide tomorrow to ignore the Constitution and the law they can do it. It's just words.

Rome did so for almost 1,500 years.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 8:50:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/12/2014 8:03:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
What is the true nature of power?

It's incredibly complicated. I can only recommend reading which addresses it, in particular Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hoffer, etc.

Ahh, well I guess that's the end of that line.

the intransigence of law

What is wrong with intransigent law? (Even though this seems like a really silly thing to say since I have never seen expiration built into a system before)

Ugh, that was a typo. I meant transience, and somehow typed intransigent.

Ooook, what is wrong with transient law?

and the mortality of men.

There was nothing about immorality in there.

Mortality. The fact that men die and new ones take over. It's a big problem in government, perhaps the biggest one.

How is it a problem?

Anyone can design a perfect system, the tricky part is rigging it so it doesn't collapse into something horrific.

Presumably if it collapses into something horrific it's not perfect.

Everything collapses into something horrific eventually.

Guess all we can do is water that tree with blood. I kind of hoped it wasn't a vampire.

Do you presume any other philosophy has been implemented politically? The history of government since the fall of feudalism has been compromise.

Objectivism as an ethical philosophy does not face this stumbling block. But it does have an explicitly political dimension which cannot be ignored. Most other philosophies are pretty apolitical, or if they are political seek to influence politics rather than completely direct it. Objectivism says 'this is the only morally proper form of government.'

Objectivism says government like people must follow objective morality. The government I describe above is not from objectivist literature, it merely complies with it.

They aren't enforced, they have nothing to do with force.

So what happens when several people build a bridge, paying for it under the understanding that it is for their exclusive use, and a bunch of people who didn't pay come along and use it?

Call the cops.

How are fraud and trespassing dealt with?

I left out a lot of stuff that is the same (and some stuff that shouldn't be too). Someone reports it. Police investigate. With sufficient evidence they arrest. The suspect is tried by a jury of peers.

What forces judges to follow the letter of the law?

Nothing, kinda of like right now :p

Well, that's not a really flattering comparison =P And we do have checks and balances now, it would be even worse without them. Judges being elected democratically pretty much ensures that the meaning of the law will shift on the winds of public opinion.

Come on now try to think about this a little before speaking. We elect congress, congress makes law. What does it matter if interpretation shifts on the winds of public opinion if the law itself can do so?

Besides which making the judges one term with the offset I mentioned pretty much fixes public influence on the judicial branch.

What stops force from being abused?

Only people's dedication to follow the Constitution and what it stands for. Again, kind of like right now except the new Constitution gives absolutely no quarter to those who would twist it's meaning and does not permit immorality when honestly interpreted.

The Constitution sets up a set of mutually antagonistic relationships between competing groups of powerful citizens in order to make it more difficult to quickly alter the way in which law is made, interpreted, and enforced. True, if people stopped believing completely in it the Constitution would cease to be effective. But the structure of government prevents any one part of it from being ignored out of hand. Twisting its meaning is a lengthy process because of this.

A lengthy process that is nearly impossible to reverse. Slowing down corruption doesn't imply a stable system.

As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." That can never be taken for granted.; what happens when it ceases to be true?

Bad stuff.

Yes, well, would a more structurally complicated, yet less ideologically pure government not have less of a potential for such catastrophic collapse? And, if so, why choose yours?

No. I agree with your analysis above completely. Complexity just slows things down, good and bad. There is a much simpler way to slow things down. Make them static in the Constitution.

If the people decide tomorrow to ignore the Constitution and the law they can do it. It's just words.

Rome did so for almost 1,500 years.

The people of Rome never wavered in their desire to see their city and state defeat all comers. Keeping Rome together was as simple as convincing people that somebody was an enemy. Even so there were many close calls.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 12:48:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 11:52:38 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/12/2014 8:50:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/12/2014 8:03:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
the intransigence of law

What is wrong with intransigent law? (Even though this seems like a really silly thing to say since I have never seen expiration built into a system before)

Ugh, that was a typo. I meant transience, and somehow typed intransigent.

Ooook, what is wrong with transient law?

Well, nothing, since all law is transient. It poses a problem because we can't rely on the language of any law in itself to protect anything, it's only so strong as the systems set up to make, enforce, and interpret it are resistant to corruption and collapse.

and the mortality of men.

There was nothing about immorality in there.

Mortality. The fact that men die and new ones take over. It's a big problem in government, perhaps the biggest one.

How is it a problem?

Because it means that the views of the populace will always be shifting, that the reasons for the original founding will lose their edge over time. Above all else, it means that any system which relies on the virtue of men, whether one monarch, a noble class, or the entire populace, will fail as soon as said virtue fails. And virtue fails remarkably easily.

Do you presume any other philosophy has been implemented politically? The history of government since the fall of feudalism has been compromise.

Objectivism as an ethical philosophy does not face this stumbling block. But it does have an explicitly political dimension which cannot be ignored. Most other philosophies are pretty apolitical, or if they are political seek to influence politics rather than completely direct it. Objectivism says 'this is the only morally proper form of government.'

Objectivism says government like people must follow objective morality. The government I describe above is not from objectivist literature, it merely complies with it.

They aren't enforced, they have nothing to do with force.

So what happens when several people build a bridge, paying for it under the understanding that it is for their exclusive use, and a bunch of people who didn't pay come along and use it?

Call the cops.

And they will give the offenders a gentle scolding?

How are fraud and trespassing dealt with?

I left out a lot of stuff that is the same (and some stuff that shouldn't be too). Someone reports it. Police investigate. With sufficient evidence they arrest. The suspect is tried by a jury of peers.
What forces judges to follow the letter of the law?

Nothing, kinda of like right now :p

Well, that's not a really flattering comparison =P And we do have checks and balances now, it would be even worse without them. Judges being elected democratically pretty much ensures that the meaning of the law will shift on the winds of public opinion.

Come on now try to think about this a little before speaking. We elect congress, congress makes law. What does it matter if interpretation shifts on the winds of public opinion if the law itself can do so?

Besides which making the judges one term with the offset I mentioned pretty much fixes public influence on the judicial branch.

Did you ever stop to think about why we don't practice direct democracy? It's because the founders attempted to minimize the influence which the public at large had on the law. Originally Senators weren't even elected by the people, they were elected by an additional tier of state representatives. The idea was that shifts in public opinion would take a while to penetrate the various tiers of representative government, providing an insulatory effect. In this system the legislators appoint the judges, and they appoint them for life at the highest echelons of the court system. The level of insulation from public opinion is immensely greater than any in which the judges face popular election. Just think that, in order to have great amount of say in the law, any judge must rise through the court system, be appointed by an supreme elected executive, and then be approved by a class of lawmakers who themselves have been appointed by state legislatures. All of these classes being pitted against one another by a system of checks and balances.

What stops force from being abused?

Only people's dedication to follow the Constitution and what it stands for. Again, kind of like right now except the new Constitution gives absolutely no quarter to those who would twist it's meaning and does not permit immorality when honestly interpreted.

The Constitution sets up a set of mutually antagonistic relationships between competing groups of powerful citizens in order to make it more difficult to quickly alter the way in which law is made, interpreted, and enforced. True, if people stopped believing completely in it the Constitution would cease to be effective. But the structure of government prevents any one part of it from being ignored out of hand. Twisting its meaning is a lengthy process because of this.

A lengthy process that is nearly impossible to reverse. Slowing down corruption doesn't imply a stable system.

It's one of the main characteristics of a stable system. Complete corruption of the law is one of the quickest paths to the concentration of power and the subsequent dissolution of republican government. The resulting forms of government are notoriously unstable.

As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." That can never be taken for granted.; what happens when it ceases to be true?

Bad stuff.

Yes, well, would a more structurally complicated, yet less ideologically pure government not have less of a potential for such catastrophic collapse? And, if so, why choose yours?

No. I agree with your analysis above completely. Complexity just slows things down, good and bad. There is a much simpler way to slow things down. Make them static in the Constitution.

How do you guarantee that the constitution stays static? Or even that it's even followed? It'd be quite the trick, For centuries after the Emperors seized control in Rome the various implements of Republican government continued to go through the forms of governing with no real power to speak of.

If the people decide tomorrow to ignore the Constitution and the law they can do it. It's just words.

Rome did so for almost 1,500 years.

The people of Rome never wavered in their desire to see their city and state defeat all comers. Keeping Rome together was as simple as convincing people that somebody was an enemy. Even so there were many close calls.

Oh, they did. Consider the invasion of Hannibal during the Second Punic War and the dictatorship of Fabius. The real danger to Rome's existence was Hannibal's march through the countryside. As the nobility and other Roman allies saw their estates ravaged while Rome delayed, being unable to defeat Hannibal in the field, they considered turning against Rome in order to save themselves. This would have spelled the end of the Republic, if Fabius hadn't been appointed dictator and engaged the Carthaginians in the novel strategy which would later bear his name and come to define guerrilla warfare. By harrying Hannibal's troops and supply lines Fabius delayed his march, devastated his morale, and eventually restored the unity of Rome in time to mount a strong defense and win the war. This extraordinarily crafty (and unpopular, as many attempts were made to stop what was at the time seen as cowardly and dishonorable conduct) response was only made possible by the untouchable nature of the temporary office of dictator. In the end, it was a structural component of Roman government,
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 3:17:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 12:48:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:52:38 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
It poses a problem because we can't rely on the language of any law in itself to protect anything, it's only so strong as the systems set up to make, enforce, and interpret it are resistant to corruption and collapse.

I am not following you.

Because it means that the views of the populace will always be shifting, that the reasons for the original founding will lose their edge over time.

The views of the son can be as the father, but regardless the reasons for founding this government will never lose their edge even if people forget the evil it protects them from.

Above all else, it means that any system which relies on the virtue of men, whether one monarch, a noble class, or the entire populace, will fail as soon as said virtue fails. And virtue fails remarkably easily.

In general how can a system not rely on virtue?

And they will give the offenders a gentle scolding?

No, they will lock them up or fine them according to the offense.

Did you ever stop to think about why we don't practice direct democracy?

Ad populum is a fallacy?

It's because the founders attempted to minimize the influence which the public at large had on the law.

Yet they allowed the public via their elected representatives to change everything about it including the Constitution itself. This constitution does not.

The idea was that shifts in public opinion would take a while to penetrate the various tiers of representative government, providing an insulatory effect.

The idea of this constitution is that it has it's own thermostat. If the people want to contradict it they will have to break it.

The level of insulation from public opinion is immensely greater than any in which the judges face popular election.

And I see no good coming of it. I see judges who read words that aren't there and creates layers of precedence that would allow the mailman to kick down your door on the original mandate of "delivering mail on time." I see absurd opinions on the admissibility of evidence. I see the exact same political lines drawn in among judges that are drawn amongst the populace.

This shield is waaaufer thin yet you see an inch of steel and so presume the storm on the other side must be fierce indeed.

Just think that, in order to have great amount of say in the law, any judge must rise through the court system, be appointed by an supreme elected executive, and then be approved by a class of lawmakers who themselves have been appointed by state legislatures. All of these classes being pitted against one another by a system of checks and balances.

I have thought, and every layer of indirection is another opportunity for corruption without much more guarantee of sound judgement ability.

Complete corruption of the law.

The law is no less corrupt now due to representatives. For every time they checked the will of the people to pass a bad law, they themselves have ignored the people and passed a bad law themselves.

How do you guarantee that the constitution stays static?

It says the critical parts can't change, anyone who tries is violating the Constitution. How can I make sure people follow that rule? I can't, not with words. But if they are going to blatantly violate it they may as well make a new one.

Or even that it's even followed? It'd be quite the trick

Yes it would, but it is not one that I am claiming to be able to perform nor one that any existing Constitution has either. I only maintain that should people subscribe to and work within the bounds of this Constitution it would be better than now.

Oh, they did. Consider the invasion of Hannibal during the Second Punic War and the dictatorship of Fabius. The real danger to Rome's existence was Hannibal's march through the countryside. As the nobility and other Roman allies saw their estates ravaged while Rome delayed, being unable to defeat Hannibal in the field, they considered turning against Rome in order to save themselves. This would have spelled the end of the Republic, if Fabius hadn't been appointed dictator and engaged the Carthaginians in the novel strategy which would later bear his name and come to define guerrilla warfare. By harrying Hannibal's troops and supply lines Fabius delayed his march, devastated his morale, and eventually restored the unity of Rome in time to mount a strong defense and win the war. This extraordinarily crafty (and unpopular, as many attempts were made to stop what was at the time seen as cowardly and dishonorable conduct) response was only made possible by the untouchable nature of the temporary office of dictator. In the end, it was a structural component of Roman government,

So your example of the Roman people wavering in their desire to defeat all comers was that Fabius was unpopular for not meeting the Carthaginians head on? Mmmmmm. Yet your example also shows a loyalty to the law of Rome in following the dictator despite his unpopular moves. Showing that people will stick by a Constitution even if it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 7:05:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 7:48:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

"Orrr.... you have a right to be free from interference. Others are obligated to not interfere. 'Provide' conveys the impression of a positive duty. The only duties are negative"

If I'm obligated not to do something - isn't that something you need to establish first?

"Coming from an anarchist it's a bit of a pot calling the kettle black..." I think I would be the world's worst anarchist if I thought government was a good idea. Yes, an anarchist society has rules, but I do not think that it is necessary for there to be an authority figure for rules to be followed. Just think about it for a mere second...

"Do you realize also that most of the world is democracy since 125 - 200 years ago? The power is in the hands of the people, trying to absolve them of responsibility is simple denial"

This is why I have little respect for right-wing libertarians - relentless defenders of the status quo, endlessly ignorant of how concentrated power currently is.

The power is 'in the hands of the people', but seriously, educate yourself to the extent to which the people are controlled...

"distinguished Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, in his text American Politics, where he observes that power must remain invisible if it is to be effective: "The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.""
(http://www.chomsky.info...)

"The Crisis of Democracy: On the Governability of Democracies was initially a 1975 report written by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki for the Trilateral Commission and later published as a book.

The report observed the political state of the United States, Europe and Japan and says that in the United States the problems of governance "stem from an excess of democracy" and thus advocates "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions."

Read the damn thing: http://www.trilateral.org...

The overload of decision-making systems... democracy is too open, it needs regulation... democracy makes it possible for many different groups to coalesce to resist the establishment... 'democratic ethos makes it difficult to prevent access and restrict information'... intellectuals are good when they promote establishment interest, bad when they undermine it...

Furthermore, if the mass media is owned by rich people, with their rich friends, relying on advertising money, loans and investments for rich people, relying on cheap reports from the government, when the government is a friend of the rich (http://www.nytimes.com... - best quote: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can"t remember what the second is" - Mark Hanna, Republican Senator), they are hardly going to launch serious attacks on the government. Plus, they'd have to use 'non-establishment' sources to do so, which means they must spend time and money defending the validity of these sources, and they'll be called 'biased crackpots' by the government, a whole host of think-tanks, and any media outlets who want to gain favour even then.

It is not impossible to use positions of power in that democracy to influence the constituency into maintaining them, as long as the mental prison you create is invisible and 'soft'.

"I could say the same thing about corporations. I don't think you would entertain the fact that corporations make lots of fancy things as justification for lying to and enslaving people (and I mean really lying and really enslaving)"

I wasn't defending the government, I was pointing out that government and business are synergistic. The government isn't a tool of the masses directed against rich people, it's the opposite way around.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 7:22:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 7:50:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/12/2014 2:12:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
On Galt, I would have to say that he suffers from the bizarre delusion that it is the poor people who are the powerful ones. I mean really, complain about taxation all you like, Galt, but it's not so bad when it bails out your bank, educates and heals your workers, builds roads for you, protects your international interests for you, and protects your business from theft and strikes. Sure, some of it goes to the poor, but you want consumers, you don't want legions of the destitute protesting.

Your other points are good, but this tired old straw man undermines you. I'm guessing that you just read Galt's speech, and not the entire novel. The speech uses some bizarre shorthand (which I'm not a fan of) that, without the context provided by the novel, seems to indict the poor. This isn't the case at all. The villains in Atlas Shrugged are a group of incompetent, oligarchical 'good old boys' who use the state to prop up their immense conglomerates and crush more innovative competition. The poor are sometimes cast in a tragic, sympathetic light, other times in a harsh, critical one. For example, one sympathetic character is a poor but bright and optimistic store clerk who marries one of the chief villains, a president of a railroad, who abuses her, leading to her eventual suicide. Their treatment is more nuanced than the book's apparently illiterate critics make it out to be.

You can call it a straw man, but really it was just quickly reading a text and offering my opinion on it.

"The villains in Atlas Shrugged are a group of incompetent, oligarchical 'good old boys' who use the state to prop up their immense conglomerates and crush more innovative competition"

Galt's address is clearly not directed at oligarchical good old boys, but at the 'common herd' - "You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty"

and to them he says " I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world".
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 7:26:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 7:05:39 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2014 7:48:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Orrr.... you have a right to be free from interference. Others are obligated to not interfere. 'Provide' conveys the impression of a positive duty. The only duties are negative

If I'm obligated not to do something - isn't that something you need to establish first?

You're obligated to refrain from doing something. This was a description of what I thought the best government would be, not a full scale justification of my morality.

Coming from an anarchist it's a bit of a pot calling the kettle black...
I think I would be the world's worst anarchist if I thought government was a good idea. Yes, an anarchist society has rules, but I do not think that it is necessary for there to be an authority figure for rules to be followed. Just think about it for a mere second...

I am thinking about it, and the proposition that everyone (or enough people) will follow the rules despite no one making them is absurd. People try to make them now and they still break the rules.

True, a different kind of 'criminal' tries to break bad rules that are honestly perceived to be unjust (i.e. me) but there are still people who just don't care.

Since you seem to pretty much define an authority figure as any kind of effective system to protect moral people from immoral people you have no recourse.

Do you realize also that most of the world is democracy since 125 - 200 years ago? The power is in the hands of the people, trying to absolve them of responsibility is simple denial

This is why I have little respect for right-wing libertarians - relentless defenders of the status quo, endlessly ignorant of how concentrated power currently is.

The power is 'in the hands of the people', but seriously, educate yourself to the extent to which the people are controlled...

"distinguished Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, in his text American Politics, where he observes that power must remain invisible if it is to be effective: "The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.""
(http://www.chomsky.info...)

So it's invisible and that's why we can't see it. It's kinda hard to prove invisible things exist isn't it Wocambs?

On the other hand I can see people voting, I can see them ranting their irrational slogans, I can see the government using force on minorities, especially extreme ones like the 1%.

"The Crisis of Democracy: On the Governability of Democracies was initially a 1975 report written by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki for the Trilateral Commission and later published as a book.

The report observed the political state of the United States, Europe and Japan and says that in the United States the problems of governance "stem from an excess of democracy" and thus advocates "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions."

Read the damn thing: http://www.trilateral.org...

Before I read it, what are you saying is the significance?

I could say the same thing about corporations. I don't think you would entertain the fact that corporations make lots of fancy things as justification for lying to and enslaving people (and I mean really lying and really enslaving)

I wasn't defending the government, I was pointing out that government and business are synergistic. The government isn't a tool of the masses directed against rich people, it's the opposite way around.

No I think it's pretty much a tool of the masses directed against any minority they feel has been causing them trouble; often rich people and more specifically in contemporary time "wall street fat cat bankers."

So let's look at the layers of 'control.'

You say the rich people control the minds of the people. The people control the government. The government has the force. Thus the rich control the force.

But if the rich people controlled the minds of the people, why would they need to use force on them? Why not just paint themselves as heroes working to save the nation from financial doom brought about by say, commies, or illegal immigrants?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 7:22:41 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2014 7:50:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The villains in Atlas Shrugged are a group of incompetent, oligarchical 'good old boys' who use the state to prop up their immense conglomerates and crush more innovative competition

Galt's address is clearly not directed at oligarchical good old boys, but at the 'common herd'

That's true, because he knows the herd is the problem. The oligarchic good old boys are powerless without the mob's complicit blanking out. He often refers to their leaders, and the way they manipulate them with fear and demand a fundamental contradiction from them.

The actual villain characters are mostly 'powerful' people with the wrong philosophy.

- "You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty"

and to them he says " I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world".

And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:00:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:22:41 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2014 7:50:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The villains in Atlas Shrugged are a group of incompetent, oligarchical 'good old boys' who use the state to prop up their immense conglomerates and crush more innovative competition

Galt's address is clearly not directed at oligarchical good old boys, but at the 'common herd'

That's true, because he knows the herd is the problem. The oligarchic good old boys are powerless without the mob's complicit blanking out. He often refers to their leaders, and the way they manipulate them with fear and demand a fundamental contradiction from them.

The actual villain characters are mostly 'powerful' people with the wrong philosophy.

- "You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty"

and to them he says " I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world".

And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?

Just because this is quick: I was in a bit of a rush at the time to finish that. Basically - it is evidently not the oligarchs who have sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, or happiness to duty. Ergo he his not addressing the poor. Ergo his is claiming that the poor have 'victimised' whoever it is that represents Atlas.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:28:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 7:26:10 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

"This was a description of what I thought the best government would be, not a full scale justification of my morality" - So it's just an opinion, then?

"True, a different kind of 'criminal' tries to break bad rules that are honestly perceived to be unjust (i.e. me) but there are still people who just don't care"

There are so few 'true criminals'. We create the rest. Unless you think it's a coincidence that growing up in Kensington (posh) makes you probably ten times less likely to commit an offence than someone growing up in Peckham (poor + gangs).

"Since you seem to pretty much define an authority figure as any kind of effective system to protect moral people from immoral people you have no recourse"

Well, actually I argue that hierarchies of power are immoral, and that the most effective way to prevent injustice is to create a moral society.

"So it's invisible and that's why we can't see it. It's kinda hard to prove invisible things exist isn't it Wocambs?"

Is this a joke?

"On the other hand I can see people voting, I can see them ranting their irrational slogans, I can see the government using force on minorities, especially extreme ones like the 1%."

Lol. Yes, the oppressed 1%, who own 40% of the country's wealth (or something), who have the ear of any politician they want in exchange for a donation, whose friends own the media - yes, the poor 1%. What force is used against them, exactly, that is not used against everyone? Do the police search them disproportionately, lock them up from fear and laziness, break up their demonstrations regarding the difficulties they face?

"Before I read it, what are you saying is the significance?"

It shows how the establishment thinks, which I think is fairly important, since it turns out that they imagine democracy as more of a feudal thing - the people can petition politicians, but obviously we have to regulate their influence. The masses are far too stupid and argumentative to know what's good for them.

"No I think it's pretty much a tool of the masses directed against any minority they feel has been causing them trouble; often rich people and more specifically in contemporary time "wall street fat cat bankers"

You're delusional if you think the politicians persecute the people who line their pockets. Didn't the government give those 'fat cats' billions a few years ago because they were failing?

"You say the rich people control the minds of the people. The people control the government. The government has the force. Thus the rich control the force.

But if the rich people controlled the minds of the people, why would they need to use force on them? Why not just paint themselves as heroes working to save the nation from financial doom brought about by say, commies, or illegal immigrants?"

I'm pretty sure they've managed to successfully paint themselves as 'job creators'. Whether it's true or not, it's the 'establishment line'. Isn't the Cato Institute just a big propaganda machine?

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about 'money is power'.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:09:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 9:00:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?

Just because this is quick: I was in a bit of a rush at the time to finish that. Basically - it is evidently not the oligarchs who have sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, or happiness to duty. Ergo he his not addressing the poor. Ergo his is claiming that the poor have 'victimised' whoever it is that represents Atlas.

He is claiming those who sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, and happiness to duty are the ones who victimize those who don't. You want to much to make this class warfare but it isn't, it's philosophical warfare.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:23:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 9:28:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:26:10 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
This was a description of what I thought the best government would be, not a full scale justification of my morality
- So it's just an opinion, then?

Everything I say is my opinion, the morality is objectively justifiable; I just didn't do it here. This government is 'just' my opinion about what the best government would be. I cannot objectively prove it is the best possible government, it certainly beats the immoral ones though. (it beats a lack too)

True, a different kind of 'criminal' tries to break bad rules that are honestly perceived to be unjust (i.e. me) but there are still people who just don't care

There are so few 'true criminals'. We create the rest. Unless you think it's a coincidence that growing up in Kensington (posh) makes you probably ten times less likely to commit an offence than someone growing up in Peckham (poor + gangs).

Anarchy won't remove poverty, nothing will be extreme production per capita. If anything people will have plenty of reason to suspect your rules aren't fair and they will go off stealing from your commune.

Since you seem to pretty much define an authority figure as any kind of effective system to protect moral people from immoral people you have no recourse

Well, actually I argue that hierarchies of power are immoral,

Either you define power as only force or fraud, or I don't fear all power like you do.

and that the most effective way to prevent injustice is to create a moral society.

This government would foster a moral society. Not a egalitarian society, but a moral one.

So it's invisible and that's why we can't see it. It's kinda hard to prove invisible things exist isn't it Wocambs?

Is this a joke?

No, I'm not buying into any conspiracy theories without evidence. If you want me to believe companies are oppressing people I need to see the mechanism of oppression. Propaganda and trade doesn't count.

On the other hand I can see people voting, I can see them ranting their irrational slogans, I can see the government using force on minorities, especially extreme ones like the 1%.

Lol. Yes, the oppressed 1%, who own 40% of the country's wealth (or something), who have the ear of any politician they want in exchange for a donation, whose friends own the media - yes, the poor 1%. What force is used against them, exactly, that is not used against everyone?

The same force, it just extorts more and permits less freedom.

Do the police search them disproportionately, lock them up from fear and laziness, break up their demonstrations regarding the difficulties they face?

They steal their more of their money.

Before I read it, what are you saying is the significance?

It shows how the establishment thinks, which I think is fairly important, since it turns out that they imagine democracy as more of a feudal thing - the people can petition politicians, but obviously we have to regulate their influence. The masses are far too stupid and argumentative to know what's good for them.

So you found someone who seems to think along the same lines as Skepsikyma's objection to this government? Ok so what? I certainly don't trust the masses with a vote on what rights exist.

You're delusional if you think the politicians persecute the people who line their pockets. Didn't the government give those 'fat cats' billions a few years ago because they were failing?

That was because they believed in Kensyian economics not because they were bribed, and they caused them to fail in the first place trying to find everybody a house.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about 'money is power'.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about 'money is the power to reward not punish, it is the power to trade not coerce'
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:34:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:09:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:00:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?

Just because this is quick: I was in a bit of a rush at the time to finish that. Basically - it is evidently not the oligarchs who have sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, or happiness to duty. Ergo he his not addressing the poor. Ergo his is claiming that the poor have 'victimised' whoever it is that represents Atlas.

He is claiming those who sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, and happiness to duty are the ones who victimize those who don't. You want to much to make this class warfare but it isn't, it's philosophical warfare.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say. Do we live in a classless society?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:59:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:34:21 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:09:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:00:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?

Just because this is quick: I was in a bit of a rush at the time to finish that. Basically - it is evidently not the oligarchs who have sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, or happiness to duty. Ergo he his not addressing the poor. Ergo his is claiming that the poor have 'victimised' whoever it is that represents Atlas.

He is claiming those who sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, and happiness to duty are the ones who victimize those who don't. You want to much to make this class warfare but it isn't, it's philosophical warfare.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say. Do we live in a classless society?

Does Galt care about class?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:23:42 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

"the morality is objectively justifiable" - How difficult is it to outline your argument, exactly? I mean, if you're basing society on this principle we better find out if it works or not.

"Anarchy won't remove poverty, nothing will be extreme production per capita. If anything people will have plenty of reason to suspect your rules aren't fair and they will go off stealing from your commune"

Haven't quite established the rules yet, but anarchists aren't all pacifists you know. Furthermore, isn't 'extreme production per capita' something the current system prevents? Masses of unemployed, masses upon masses employed in industries that need not exist, or at least need not be the size they are, workers motivated only by their wage, otherwise bored and disinterested, endless individual attempts to achieve the same thing due to intellectual property, accumulation of a gigantic proportion of wealth by a tiny proportion of society... you know, all the things that happen when an economy is structured around profit, the bizarre middleman between work and the satisfaction of needs.

"Either you define power as only force or fraud, or I don't fear all power like you do"

Obviously you don't lol, you have several times already expressed support for the creation of hierarchy. Justify it.

"This government would foster a moral society" - yet to be established

"No, I'm not buying into any conspiracy theories without evidence. If you want me to believe companies are oppressing people I need to see the mechanism of oppression. Propaganda and trade doesn't count"

Conspiracy theories? These are celebrated intellectuals we are talking about here. Unfortunately, since the only coercion you seem to acknowledge is sticking a gun down someone's throat, you are for the moment mentally incapable of comprehending the apparent 'complexity' of the manipulation. Don't be such a simpleton.

"The same force, it just extorts more and permits less freedom"

And you accuse me of conspiracy theories... for all this extortion they still control 40% of the country's wealth. Are you saying it should be higher? Never mind the question of whether it would be higher with less tax.

"They steal their more of their money"

Isn't capital gains tax lower than the income tax people in the middle class pay? And isn't it true that rich people have fancy accountants? And isn't it true that you would still claim that they were being victimised by society if everyone was taxed equally?

"So you found someone who seems to think along the same lines as Skepsikyma's objection to this government? Ok so what? I certainly don't trust the masses with a vote on what rights exist"

Someone commissioned by the Trilateral Commission to write a report, who had the ear of Jimmy Carter. Do you think this guy is a conspiracy theorist or something? He was right up there in the establishment.

"I don't see what's so difficult to understand about 'money is the power to reward not punish, it is the power to trade not coerce'"

For someone so disillusioned by society's authority to tell him it's wrong to f*ck dogs you're awfully dogmatic when it comes to economics. Does the idea of 'economic leverage' simply not exist for you?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 12:10:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:59:31 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:34:21 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:09:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:00:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 7:31:45 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
And what about this tells you he is speaking of poor people?

Just because this is quick: I was in a bit of a rush at the time to finish that. Basically - it is evidently not the oligarchs who have sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, or happiness to duty. Ergo he his not addressing the poor. Ergo his is claiming that the poor have 'victimised' whoever it is that represents Atlas.

He is claiming those who sacrificed wealth to need, esteem to denial, and happiness to duty are the ones who victimize those who don't. You want to much to make this class warfare but it isn't, it's philosophical warfare.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say. Do we live in a classless society?

Does Galt care about class?

I don't know - is he delusional?

I'm going to repeat myself: this is your major flaw. You keep chanting 'liberty!' but apparently the only way that liberty can be restricted is by the barrel of a gun. It's so utterly simplistic and na"ve to think that a hierarchy of power cannot be used for the purpose of manipulation. Oh, and you can't throw out 'hierarchies of power' or you'd get that Satanic egalitarianism.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 12:14:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 12:10:45 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I'm going to repeat myself: this is your major flaw. You keep chanting 'liberty!' but apparently the only way that liberty can be restricted is by the barrel of a gun. It's so utterly simplistic and na"ve to think that a hierarchy of power cannot be used for the purpose of manipulation.

The barrel of a gun or a lie.

Oh, and you can't throw out 'hierarchies of power' or you'd get that Satanic egalitarianism.

You can't have universal equality. Equality of wealth requires inequality of rights.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 12:06:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:23:42 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
the morality is objectively justifiable
- How difficult is it to outline your argument, exactly? I mean, if you're basing society on this principle we better find out if it works or not.

It's not that difficult, I just get tired of it. Ok here we go.

Morality is that which deals with right and wrong. It can only arise (logically) out of values. Values and indeed self-chosen dynamic values are natural to creatures like humans, but to abstract values into a set of moral principles requires reason. When I refer to a moral being it is a being with self-chosen values capable of reason.

Most of our values are subjective, that means they only have objective existence when the scope of our person is specified. Meaning most of our values are personal as well. Abstract principles can be derived from these values, and this will produce personal morality. For instance if I really like canines, I can (and should) create a personal moral principle to be nice to them (or something). However I can't say anyone else is bound by this principle.

Some of our values are objective, that means that they have objective existence for every moral being. One way this can be is if they are logically implied by the definition of a moral being. There is one thing value that cannot be denied logically by a moral being, namely the value of their own judgement. It is a contradiction in terms to say you choose to ignore your own choices.

Self-determination is thus an objective value. In other words you want to do, what you want to do.

Either someone believes this universal value should be respected in others, or they don't. If they don't then they can't logically expect the same from others. If they do they must respect it in others. Respecting the self-determination of others is respecting liberty.

So we have only two logical groups. Those who don't have a valid moral complaint if you lock them up, and those whose own values require that they respect liberty.

This is the origin of the objective morality, a right to liberty.

Anarchy won't remove poverty, nothing will be extreme production per capita. If anything people will have plenty of reason to suspect your rules aren't fair and they will go off stealing from your commune

Haven't quite established the rules yet, but anarchists aren't all pacifists you know.

Violence without structure is hardly a better proposition.

Furthermore, isn't 'extreme production per capita' something the current system prevents?

If by current system you mean taxes, antitrust laws, constantly manipulated currency, and endless red tape yea.

Masses of unemployed, masses upon masses employed in industries that need not exist, or at least need not be the size they are, workers motivated only by their wage, otherwise bored and disinterested, endless individual attempts to achieve the same thing due to intellectual property, accumulation of a gigantic proportion of wealth by a tiny proportion of society... you know, all the things that happen when an economy is structured around profit, the bizarre middleman between work and the satisfaction of needs.

Profit is the product of our effort. Tell the consumers an industry doesn't need to exist. I have never subscribed to a newspaper, never taken a cruise, I haven't gone to a fast food joint in ten years. That's what I want, it's not my place to tell other people they have no use for those things.

If you could put together a more efficient use of people's time, that would manifest as a higher wage. The truth is you can't in most cases. Again, besides taxes there is no reason you can't make a commune right now. People have tried. Have you ever met the Amish? I have, they make it work. But there is no magic. They don't produce more per capita, they work constantly to attain happiness like everyone else.

Either you define power as only force or fraud, or I don't fear all power like you do

Obviously you don't lol, you have several times already expressed support for the creation of hierarchy. Justify it.

Every time someone consents to be in a hierarchy they justify it. Just like I would theoretically consent to the hierarchy of your direct democracy when I sign your commune's charter (or what not).

The same force, it just extorts more and permits less freedom

And you accuse me of conspiracy theories... for all this extortion they still control 40% of the country's wealth. Are you saying it should be higher? Never mind the question of whether it would be higher with less tax.

It should be higher because there shouldn't be a different tax rate. It their wealth. Unlike your allusions to control, all I've got to do is cite tax brackets which clearly steal more from rich people. Indeed even a flat percentage of income would cause people who make more money to be stolen from more.

Isn't capital gains tax lower than the income tax people in the middle class pay?

"Middle class" make a lot less money than top end investors. Besides there are a lot of regulations to keep people reporting income.

And isn't it true that rich people have fancy accountants?

lol, yes?

And isn't it true that you would still claim that they were being victimised by society if everyone was taxed equally?

Yes, even with a flat tax (constant magnitude not rate) they would be victims, just equally with everyone else.

So you found someone who seems to think along the same lines as Skepsikyma's objection to this government? Ok so what? I certainly don't trust the masses with a vote on what rights exist

Someone commissioned by the Trilateral Commission to write a report, who had the ear of Jimmy Carter. Do you think this guy is a conspiracy theorist or something? He was right up there in the establishment.

I just don't see how politicians low opinion of democracy has any bearing on my beliefs. I have a low opinion of democracy too.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about 'money is the power to reward not punish, it is the power to trade not coerce'"

For someone so disillusioned by society's authority to tell him it's wrong to f*ck dogs you're awfully dogmatic when it comes to economics.

People think I'm crazy for condemning taxes almost as often as they think I'm crazy for saying it's ok to f*ck dogs. I don't see the world in a polarized "you're either fighting the establishment or you're subscribing to it" way.

I deny that any king, oligarchs, or senators have the authority to pass laws about what I may or may not do with dogs or gold. I also deny that a mob could has such authority. The only authority I subscribe to is reason. It is not the nature of law that makes it wrong it is the relationship between specific laws and objective morality that makes some law wrong.

I do not see any authority in money to be disillusioned with. I have nothing to fear from money alone. If the worst someone could do is offer me a million dollars to stop f*cking dogs, I'd turn them down and say "not worth it" the choice is still mine.

Does the idea of 'economic leverage' simply not exist for you?

Not as a source of immorality. The worst it can ever get is analogous to your cliff example, which means the worst thing someone can ever do to me with money is refuse to help me when I really needed it.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:18:46 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

Remarkably Sartrean, actually. Are you sure you don't want to come over to the dark side? Let's be honest, it's a lot cooler.

I'll tell you where you go wrong.... firstly, didn't you see me discussing this with Ragnar? I come to an almost identical conclusion, liberty, but through a far simpler argument. Oh and we lose private property, but you know, God died, maybe one day someone will write "Property is dead! We have killed him, you and I'.

Okay, and for the actual criticism:
I argue that actions require justification. I see no justification for your actions other than value, but value does not usually offer epistemological justification, so why would it here? Sure, it's a reason for picking one thing over another, if both are justifiable actions, but surely it does no more than this?

"Violence without structure is hardly a better proposition"

If it's wrong to 'steal', then it is right to use force to prevent it. However it turns out in the end, that is surely true.

"If by current system you mean taxes, antitrust laws, constantly manipulated currency, and endless red tape yea" - Yeah, down with taxes! Liberty, equality, solidarity - forever and ever, baby!

"Tell the consumers an industry doesn't need to exist" - You do not need an advertising industry to manipulate customers into 'needing' your product if no profit is made from this.

"there is no reason you can't make a commune right now... Have you ever met the Amish?" - It's illegal to establish a commune, actually. You can't just buy a piece of land and say 'Get f*cked, David Cameron! I am a law unto myself now!'. Furthermore, what do horsedrawn carts have to do with anarchism outside of your strange imagination?

"Every time someone consents to be in a hierarchy they justify it" - I don't consent to this, and I wouldn't consent to your demands for private property either - presumably saying 'Thou shalt not stain this soul with your filthy anarchist stone-age sandals!' is an imposition of authority over me.

"I just don't see how politicians low opinion of democracy has any bearing on my beliefs. I have a low opinion of democracy too" - Victory! But wait...

"Just like I would theoretically consent to the hierarchy of your direct democracy" - Sometimes I think you just ignore me, because I explicitly stated that direct democracy is a decision-making system not a hierarchy. If 99% of people want to initiate a genocide on the other 1%, then the 1% would only be genocided if they thought 'Actually, that does sound like a good idea' and agreed to it. Having people agree with you is no reason to act on people who don't. By direct democracy I just mean that things in a community ought to be run by the people in that community - yet you are always free to leave.

""Middle class" make a lot less money than top end investors. Besides there are a lot of regulations to keep people reporting income" - Lol well if we're going to do it by pure lump sums of cash then obviously the rich are 'stolen from more', but I was always under the impression that we were talking about proportionality

"People think I'm crazy for condemning taxes almost as often as they think I'm crazy for saying it's ok to f*ck dogs. I don't see the world in a polarized "you're either fighting the establishment or you're subscribing to it" way" - I agree with you on both of those things, but the thing is you're just trying to replace 'the establishment' with your own version of it.

"I deny that any king, oligarchs, or senators have the authority to pass laws about what I may or may not do with dogs or gold. I also deny that a mob could has such authority. The only authority I subscribe to is reason. It is not the nature of law that makes it wrong it is the relationship between specific laws and objective morality that makes some law wrong"

I eagerly anticipate the result of our discussion on morality then.

"The worst it can ever get is analogous to your cliff example, which means the worst thing someone can ever do to me with money is refuse to help me when I really needed it"

I F*CKED UP THE CLIFF EXAMPLE. Why is it you only seem to take in the mistakes I make and nothing else? It's actually more like I'm running from a forest fire, and you're pushing me with a stick back into the fire because I'm intruding upon your property, and you'd let me in if I became a slave.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 1:30:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:50:53 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:18:46 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Remarkably Sartrean, actually. Are you sure you don't want to come over to the dark side? Let's be honest, it's a lot cooler.

Do you have many cookies?

I'll tell you where you go wrong.... firstly, didn't you see me discussing this with Ragnar? I come to an almost identical conclusion, liberty, but through a far simpler argument. Oh and we lose private property, but you know, God died, maybe one day someone will write "Property is dead! We have killed him, you and I'.

Okay, and for the actual criticism:
I argue that actions require justification. I see no justification for your actions other than value, but value does not usually offer epistemological justification, so why would it here? Sure, it's a reason for picking one thing over another, if both are justifiable actions, but surely it does no more than this?

What makes an action justified?

"Violence without structure is hardly a better proposition"

If it's wrong to 'steal', then it is right to use force to prevent it. However it turns out in the end, that is surely true.

That is true, but without structured response the number of disproportionate punishments, mistaken criminals, and vengeance feuds would be a significant problem. It's not the end of the world but it's certainly not ideal.

Tell the consumers an industry doesn't need to exist
You do not need an advertising industry to manipulate customers into 'needing' your product if no profit is made from this.

rofl, "It can be mine for three easy payments of $19.95! help help they are commercializing me! Now we see the mind-control inherent in the system! "

there is no reason you can't make a commune right now... Have you ever met the Amish?
It's illegal to establish a commune, actually. You can't just buy a piece of land and say 'Get f*cked, David Cameron! I am a law unto myself now!'.

You can't ignore the laws of a country but those laws don't prevent you from dividing your time between leisure and necessary work and coming to communal decisions about what needs to be done.

Furthermore, what do horsedrawn carts have to do with anarchism outside of your strange imagination?

The Amish have an effective commune structure which seems reminiscent of yours. You may not abhor technology like they do of course but the principle is the same. It doesn't work without shunning.

Every time someone consents to be in a hierarchy they justify it
I don't consent to this, and I wouldn't consent to your demands for private property either - presumably saying 'Thou shalt not stain this soul with your filthy anarchist stone-age sandals!' is an imposition of authority over me.

Would saying 'thou shalt not take this food from our anarchist commune' be one as well?

Just like I would theoretically consent to the hierarchy of your direct democracy
Sometimes I think you just ignore me, because I explicitly stated that direct democracy is a decision-making system not a hierarchy. If 99% of people want to initiate a genocide on the other 1%, then the 1% would only be genocided if they thought 'Actually, that does sound like a good idea' and agreed to it.

Rule of the consensus? So if 99% of the people in the commune thought building a town-hall was a good idea they couldn't make the 1% perform 'their share' of the necessary work for that construction?

Having people agree with you is no reason to act on people who don't. By direct democracy I just mean that things in a community ought to be run by the people in that community - yet you are always free to leave.

Or stay and hang around living in random people's houses and eating random people's food.

"Middle class" make a lot less money than top end investors. Besides there are a lot of regulations to keep people reporting income
Lol well if we're going to do it by pure lump sums of cash then obviously the rich are 'stolen from more', but I was always under the impression that we were talking about proportionality

I am not, and proportionally most of the wealthy are stolen from more.

People think I'm crazy for condemning taxes almost as often as they think I'm crazy for saying it's ok to f*ck dogs. I don't see the world in a polarized "you're either fighting the establishment or you're subscribing to it" way
I agree with you on both of those things, but the thing is you're just trying to replace 'the establishment' with your own version of it.

I agree, that's why I called it a government. But it is a moral government, and that solves the problem I have with government. Not the fact that they enforce a code of morality but that they force an arbitrary code of morality which arises from a general majority opinion.

Military power is the final word in social interaction and it always has been. If you don't put it in service of justice and reason men who who don't care will put it in service of injustice and unreason.

I deny that any king, oligarchs, or senators have the authority to pass laws about what I may or may not do with dogs or gold. I also deny that a mob could has such authority. The only authority I subscribe to is reason. It is not the nature of law that makes it wrong it is the relationship between specific laws and objective morality that makes some law wrong

I eagerly anticipate the result of our discussion on morality then.

Yippee

The worst it can ever get is analogous to your cliff example, which means the worst thing someone can ever do to me with money is refuse to help me when I really needed it

I F*CKED UP THE CLIFF EXAMPLE. Why is it you only seem to take in the mistakes I make and nothing else? It's actually more like I'm running from a forest fire, and you're pushing me with a stick back into the fire because I'm intruding upon your property, and you'd let me in if I became a slave.

Not with my system, right to free movement. No land claim is absolute and no private structure can deny free movement within certain reasonable criteria (a way through every 500 metres or something).
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 4:19:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 1:30:13 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

"What makes an action justified?" is what you're meant to be telling me.

On the theme of 'burdens of proof', isn't the burden on you to prove that your society ought to exist, considering it is full of positive institutions? You're basically just saying 'If we don't have the state, X would happen, and I don't like X'. Surely we don't even need to know if X would happen or not if it's just something you personally consider bad. If we're suddenly blasted back into a violent stone age (utter nonsense) because we fail to justify any kind of societal authority, then so be it, that is, apparently, what we deserve.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 4:57:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 4:19:21 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/14/2014 1:30:13 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
What makes an action justified?
is what you're meant to be telling me.

On the theme of 'burdens of proof', isn't the burden on you to prove that your society ought to exist, considering it is full of positive institutions? You're basically just saying 'If we don't have the state, X would happen, and I don't like X'. Surely we don't even need to know if X would happen or not if it's just something you personally consider bad. If we're suddenly blasted back into a violent stone age (utter nonsense) because we fail to justify any kind of societal authority, then so be it, that is, apparently, what we deserve.

Well in this case X is wide spread violation of objective rights, so that is objectively bad. It may have positive institutions but it makes no positive demands on anyone except by their consent. Morality is a set of negative demands, and one that no one should need a government to tell them about.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.