Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:07 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There has been a stateless society all the time, it is called a civil society.

That is ridiculous. Society functions against the backdrop of law.
All societies do. There aren't any that don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-05-2014, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 11:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 11:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 05:07 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There has been a stateless society all the time, it is called a civil society.

That is ridiculous. Society functions against the backdrop of law.
All societies do. There aren't any that don't.
Sure, but law does not have to be imposed by authority of people above the law! That would kind of defeat the purpose of having a law, if the most powerful people aren't bound by it and can manipulate it. Law must be for everyone, not just for weaker and poorer people. Both in theory and in fact.

Remember Henrik Ibsen? Iceland had a long, stable culture where people wrote novels like crazy. So we know what it was like back then. They didn't have a monopoly of law there. British Common Law is even a bit closer to that standard than my continental law. Common law is a bit more honest in that. My curriculum also included an ancient Irish law, but that's a bit too ancient and primitive to be considered today. But one thing is sure, these systems can last hundreds of years, if not overrun by a foreign military empire. Which is NOT an argument for military empires, it's more like against them.

Then there are things like Coase's theorem and such, proving that people can resolve disputes while respecting property laws, just by the market, justice gets done.
I also like Molyneux's DRO theory and Universally Preferable Behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 08:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. No shit it's coercive. It's exerting influence on another person through control of the fulfillment of their desires. This is indeed inevitable, since nobody can always have everything they always want.

I happen to disagree with Elliot Rodger. But it's self-evident that the world was not responding to him as he'd've liked it to. And?

So. fucking. what?

You really need to follow up on your shallow emotionally-loaded histrionics. Fatuous herrings don't count for jack. So far there's still no substance there.

Or are you still working under the assumption that magical wishful thinking will prevent anyone from ever breaking any rule or having any disagreement about anything ever?
No, you work under that assumption, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America.
People won't obey rules on paper, so let's make more rules on paper. How about no???

Protip: I am not American. Come the fuck on. You aren't either. There are 200 other countries you could talk about, including, say, yours or mine.

Magical thinking does not solve problems.

A society which abandons the art of contingency planning is headed for immediate and inevitable collapse. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't think so either! Especially not in the government! So let's not have government! I can deal with threats and lies, but not with the government. Nobody can deal with government, that's why it's called government.

Remember how I earlier defined "government" as a mechanism for collective decision making?

And that, therefore, one cannot "not have" such a thing?

I am still entirely unclear on just what insane use you are putting the term to. But it does not appear coherent.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know the people elected and I don't have to. All I need to know is the principle.

Indeed. Ignoring actual data and experiences also makes it really, really easy to trivially affirm that principle, hmm?

I mean, I too have an easy time "knowing" and "proving" shallow, sweeping generalisations, if I ignore any and all actual detail, nuance, and exception.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Politicians are elected to alter human behavior. They do that by writing words and enforcing them at gunpoint. But this mechanism does not apply on them. Who is going to change their behavior - and how?

Protip: you already used the word "elected".

Maybe start there.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If humanity is corrupt and needs watching, who is going to watch the watchmen? This is a problem of infinite regression. More committees of watchers means more committees to watch.

That is literally an ancient question. Plato said, let's have philosophers rule with iron hand. Well, that's just another version of might makes right. If he's so right, why can't he explain that to others? Anyone could say that, I'm too intelligent to explain myself, just obey me.

Indeed. Like you do. In this thread. Repeatedly. By asserting exclusive possession of objective truth. And that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in neurotic denial.

'Cause that's a productive attitude.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Aristotle said, those who have enough time to pursue virtue, should rule, they should be secured without the need for money or power. Well, good luck getting sponsorship.

Socrates had actually a good case for criticizing the government. But he was brow-beaten into killing himself by posing an empty YET moral category called "the state" and then saying he owes "the state" everything. I guess he paid his bills like everyone else.

That's a... unique interpretation of his life. I guess.

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All of these guys had pretty low opinions of democracy. Might doesn't make right and neither does voting.

You know that what they referred to as "democracy" was an absolute unrestricted majoritarian system, as implemented by literally no nation ever, right?

(27-05-2014 09:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  None of these philosophers said, let's not force people at gunpoint or swordpoint, let them refuse service if they disagree.
The right not to be raped is the right to say no.
The right not to be taxed is the same.
Am I allowed to say no? What happens if I say no? What happens if I say no a dozen times to everything you say? Will I get any closer to a posse of armed men along the process?

Oh, God, do I need to explain this to you all the way up from high school civics class?

Your "right" not to be raped is only as meaningful as your ability to enforce it. That enforcement is not free. Do you wish to refuse the service of law enforcement?

Taxation is the price of living in society. Reality has zero sum elements. Maintenance of communal structures is not free. I'm speaking to the principle, not whatever inane non-sequitur Americanism you're probably already jacking off to. I submit to you that 'free riders' and 'tragedy of the commons' are actual, real phenomena; your response?

You're barely even pretending to engage with what I'm saying, as it happens. I'm not quite sure why that should be, if you're actually interested in discussing things with people. I mean, "everything I say"? I have said very little. I have raised some objections which you promptly (wilfully?) misinterpret and tediously harp on.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-05-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I dont think Chas is advocating military imperialism Luminon.

Also the fact that something lasts for thousands of years is irrelevant. As a matter of fact Molyneux blames a society for not changing on the parents treatment of children, and hence an unchanging society is "not virtuous" in Moly's worldview.

Moly is really an ideologue. All of society's ills come from parental malpractice according to him. Tabula Rasa stuff that most philosphers and cognitive psychologists and neurobiologists reject with empirical evidence. This is the reason he thinks the last philosopher that matter was John Locke. He thinks there are no good parents today like there were no good physicians in the 13th century. Moly is no empiricist. He's only interested in first principles and universals. He takes with one hand what he gives with the other. If he's really interested in testing his hypothesis, he should take a few FDR members with him to buy an island in the pacific and we'll have some data on how a stateless, and "virtuous" society compares.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
27-05-2014, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 12:30 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 11:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 11:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is ridiculous. Society functions against the backdrop of law.
All societies do. There aren't any that don't.
Sure, but law does not have to be imposed by authority of people above the law! That would kind of defeat the purpose of having a law, if the most powerful people aren't bound by it and can manipulate it. Law must be for everyone, not just for weaker and poorer people. Both in theory and in fact.

And that has what to do with your statement (about civil society existing without laws) being incorrect?

Quote:Remember Henrik Ibsen? Iceland had a long, stable culture where people wrote novels like crazy. So we know what it was like back then. They didn't have a monopoly of law there. British Common Law is even a bit closer to that standard than my continental law. Common law is a bit more honest in that. My curriculum also included an ancient Irish law, but that's a bit too ancient and primitive to be considered today. But one thing is sure, these systems can last hundreds of years, if not overrun by a foreign military empire. Which is NOT an argument for military empires, it's more like against them.

Then there are things like Coase's theorem and such, proving that people can resolve disputes while respecting property laws, just by the market, justice gets done.
I also like Molyneux's DRO theory and Universally Preferable Behavior.
Your point? Those theories are untested which is what was pointed out.

The rest of your post is just more proselytizing and has nothing to do with the post.

And your posting style, shared by other Libertarian True Believers™, will not win you any converts.
On the contrary, it will make even those very sympathetic to libertarian ideas reject your arguments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 04:11 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: I am not American. Come the fuck on. You aren't either. There are 200 other countries you could talk about, including, say, yours or mine.

Magical thinking does not solve problems.

A society which abandons the art of contingency planning is headed for immediate and inevitable collapse. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Nah, all democracies are problematic. It's the principle that sucks, or rather lack of it.
Law-making by central authority is magical thinking. If you disbelieve in Communist central planning of economy, why do you believe in the same thing with law?

So now the problem is contingency planning. Have you ever heard of insurance companies? They're a private sector invention. So is fire brigade and domestic defense. Before democracy, government didn't do pretty much anything for the people. Anyway, what should that contingency be? An invasion of a foreign government?

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember how I earlier defined "government" as a mechanism for collective decision making?

And that, therefore, one cannot "not have" such a thing?

I am still entirely unclear on just what insane use you are putting the term to. But it does not appear coherent.
So your definition is vague. Collective decision-making can be anything, including a family planning vacations or a business company deciding on budget.
Max Weber was a sociologist who defined government as a "monopoly on legitimate violence". Let's shorten that as monopoly on violence.

When I talk about government, I talk about violence, such a big violence, that it can and does create a monopoly. This is what I am against. Monopoly on violence. Not collective decisions. We will have a great deal of creativity and voluntary cooperation, as long as nobody has a monopoly on violence. I don't know what's worse - if there's a monopoly on violence or if people are trying to gain it or die trying.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Ignoring actual data and experiences also makes it really, really easy to trivially affirm that principle, hmm?

I mean, I too have an easy time "knowing" and "proving" shallow, sweeping generalisations, if I ignore any and all actual detail, nuance, and exception.
I don't believe in non-scientific exceptions. If there's no biological or physical exception, it's magical thinking, cultural value, or some other such bullshit. Exceptions suck. There are no exceptions in philosophy. However, a monopoly on violence is one huge exception.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: you already used the word "elected".

Maybe start there.
Election? A symbolical social ritual, based on wishful thinking that people given absolute power will not be corrupted by it.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Like you do. In this thread. Repeatedly. By asserting exclusive possession of objective truth. And that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in neurotic denial.

'Cause that's a productive attitude.
Would you say that objective truths exist? I'd say they do. Asserting them makes people very nervous, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You know that what they referred to as "democracy" was an absolute unrestricted majoritarian system, as implemented by literally no nation ever, right?
Meaningless social rituals. People's monetary and power interests almost always override allegiance to their group back home. Especially in USA. These people all know each other and have a plenty of time to stage the theater.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, God, do I need to explain this to you all the way up from high school civics class?

Your "right" not to be raped is only as meaningful as your ability to enforce it. That enforcement is not free. Do you wish to refuse the service of law enforcement?
If that is what you were taught in your high school civics class, then I'm sorry, you should want your money back. Oh. You can't. Seriously, this is religious-grade bullshit.
You explicitly say here that might makes right. This is called fascism and was rejected at Nuremberg trial on the grounds that there is such a thing as a "natural law". This "natural law" says what is right or wrong even though it's not explicitly stated in a national law. This "natural law" is an unspoken nod to the discipline of philosophy. Law is actually a bad philosophy not rooted in any principles, just made-up rules with some internal consistency.

I guess you mean you're amoral, there is only dog-eat-dog state of nature (dogs don't eat each other in nature anyway) and it's kill or be killed. Only strong hand of the law can rule. Da fuck, man?! That's Thomas Hobbes sinful human nature bullshit taken to the extreme. You haven't found out anything of that scientifically, you're just spinning some government education horror stories.

Yes, I wish to refuse the "service" of law enforcement, if that means 60 % of my lifetime income will be taken away as taxes. I would like if people kept 60 % of their income and people could do business as private security agencies, night watchmen on hire and so on. I'm sure it would be cheaper and better than state police. Governments actually sometimes hire private security agencies to complement the police forces.
If you don't believe in Communist central planning of economy, you shouldn't believe in central planning of security either. Security is just another commodity to buy on the market. I think Alexis de Tocqueville or Adam Ferguson was worried soldiers might take over the society after a revolution, because they're experts on violence, turns out they didn't, they sold their services on the market.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Taxation is the price of living in society. Reality has zero sum elements. Maintenance of communal structures is not free. I'm speaking to the principle, not whatever inane non-sequitur Americanism you're probably already jacking off to. I submit to you that 'free riders' and 'tragedy of the commons' are actual, real phenomena; your response?
Ah, more corrections.
Taxation is not a price. Price is a trade concept and is mutually agreed upon. Taxation is unilateral, it's a theft.
Reality has zero sum elements, but society and economy is an open system. It has inputs from nature. Voluntary interactions are not zero-sum, they're win-win, productive. Win-lose interactions (violence) are zero-sum.

(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're barely even pretending to engage with what I'm saying, as it happens. I'm not quite sure why that should be, if you're actually interested in discussing things with people. I mean, "everything I say"? I have said very little. I have raised some objections which you promptly (wilfully?) misinterpret and tediously harp on.
There are disciplines of philosophy, law and social sciences (plus law and economy). I don't think you are educated in these. I think you're so used to being correct in natural sciences like physics, that you don't notice depths of your ignorance in any other areas. The primordial soup of popular knowledge that you keep feeding me will help you about as much as my knowledge of physics with you.
Law and politology are today the closest thing to theology you can find. There is no rooting in empiricism or first rational principles. There is some emphasis on internal consistency, but little on the external. This carries over into Keynesian and later economy, where state plays a role. State economy makes literally no sense. People gloss over this, because they must memorize it like parrots, without understanding. There's a great emphasis on history, which isn't good, because history isn't normatively prescriptive, yet law is.

You know about as much about law, economy and philosophy, as a Creationist knows about geology, biology and paleontology. You have all the popular curriculum of government education, which is to say, worse than complete ignorance. I came to the Libertarian position after studying government curricula, law, politology, economy, stateless economy, sociology, history, psychology and of course philosophy, like logic and gnoseology. Turns out that government curriculum is bullshit. It is more politized than evolution in Texas biology textbooks (I wrote something of my thesis about that). That is to say, politics is all politized.

Libertarianism only started making sense only after I studied all of this stuff. Before I thought less or more what you think right now. Heh. I wish I knew any younger people. Looks like there's no point in talking to older people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Nah, all democracies are problematic. It's the principle that sucks, or rather lack of it.
Law-making by central authority is magical thinking. If you disbelieve in Communist central planning of economy, why do you believe in the same thing with law?

Uh, no. Constitutional checks and balances and rule of law are not magic. They're actual things.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So now the problem is contingency planning. Have you ever heard of insurance companies? They're a private sector invention. So is fire brigade and domestic defense. Before democracy, government didn't do pretty much anything for the people. Anyway, what should that contingency be? An invasion of a foreign government?

And history shows that absent outside influences those same private concerns were far worse at providing services and being accountable.

So there's that.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember how I earlier defined "government" as a mechanism for collective decision making?

And that, therefore, one cannot "not have" such a thing?

I am still entirely unclear on just what insane use you are putting the term to. But it does not appear coherent.
So your definition is vague. Collective decision-making can be anything, including a family planning vacations or a business company deciding on budget.

Indeed.

We might consider how this applies to and is exemplified by the literally thousands of social entities which exist on this planet and the tens of thousands which have existed.

No shit it's a broad term.

Which is why "IT R BAD LOL" is such a stupid and inadequate thing to say.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Max Weber was a sociologist who defined government as a "monopoly on legitimate violence". Let's shorten that as monopoly on violence.

Except for the exceptions and shortcomings, naturally; by removing the word "legitimate" (note: legitimate is obviously subjective) you remove any possible meaning.

Since even you have already explicitly affirmed the existence of such a thing as legitimate violence - in the phenomenon of self-defense.
(note: what constitutes defense - and its justification - is even more hilariously subjective)

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  When I talk about government, I talk about violence, such a big violence, that it can and does create a monopoly. This is what I am against. Monopoly on violence.

I didn't know you were such a fan of civil war. Oligopolies of violence are not an improvement.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Not collective decisions. We will have a great deal of creativity and voluntary cooperation, as long as nobody has a monopoly on violence. I don't know what's worse - if there's a monopoly on violence or if people are trying to gain it or die trying.

You appear to just be making things up.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't believe in non-scientific exceptions. If there's no biological or physical exception, it's magical thinking, cultural value, or some other such bullshit. Exceptions suck. There are no exceptions in philosophy. However, a monopoly on violence is one huge exception.

I cannot parse this. It is incoherent.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: you already used the word "elected".

Maybe start there.
Election? A symbolical social ritual, based on wishful thinking that people given absolute power will not be corrupted by it.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of elected officials representing billions of people across thousands of systems across the planet would agree with you.

Oh, wait. They wouldn't. Because that's insane.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Like you do. In this thread. Repeatedly. By asserting exclusive possession of objective truth. And that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in neurotic denial.

'Cause that's a productive attitude.
Would you say that objective truths exist? I'd say they do. Asserting them makes people very nervous, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Uh, yeah, the thing with that is that merely asserting something doesn't actually count for shit.

You can assert whatever you like. That doesn't mean anyone need take any of it seriously.
(hint: they won't)

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You know that what they referred to as "democracy" was an absolute unrestricted majoritarian system, as implemented by literally no nation ever, right?
Meaningless social rituals.

Guy, you can't just fucking assert that vapid conspiracist nonsense and expect anyone to take you even remotely seriously.

I mean, sure, you can pretend to yourself that no electoral process anywhere has ever made a substantive difference, but there's no reason for anyone else to follow you into delusion.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  People's monetary and power interests almost always override allegiance to their group back home. Especially in USA. These people all know each other and have a plenty of time to stage the theater.

Oh, shut the hell up about America already. Neither of us live there.

Also, what the crap is "these people" supposed to mean?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, God, do I need to explain this to you all the way up from high school civics class?

Your "right" not to be raped is only as meaningful as your ability to enforce it. That enforcement is not free. Do you wish to refuse the service of law enforcement?
If that is what you were taught in your high school civics class, then I'm sorry, you should want your money back. Oh. You can't. Seriously, this is religious-grade bullshit.
You explicitly say here that might makes right.

No, you lovable madman, I did not.

"You explicitly said X, because your words said Y, TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL". Nope, thanks for playing.

Do they teach this shit in e-libertarian boot camp or something? Is there a strawmen 101?

What I said was that rights are meaningless unless enforced.

That's a very simple principle - and I would defy you to find someone who denied it.

In fact, that's so different from the caricature you've built that I can't in good faith consider it a misunderstanding.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is called fascism and was rejected at Nuremberg trial on the grounds that there is such a thing as a "natural law". This "natural law" says what is right or wrong even though it's not explicitly stated in a national law. This "natural law" is an unspoken nod to the discipline of philosophy. Law is actually a bad philosophy not rooted in any principles, just made-up rules with some internal consistency.

Oh, hey, Nuremberg. So now you're fine and dandy with post-hoc victor's justice backed by monopolized deadly force?

Interesting.

But, uh, feel free to keep that "objective morality" fantasy going.

"But my condemnation of Nazis must be objective, because it would make me uncomfortable otherwise!" doesn't work for the theists and it won't work for you.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I guess you mean you're amoral, there is only dog-eat-dog state of nature (dogs don't eat each other in nature anyway) and it's kill or be killed. Only strong hand of the law can rule. Da fuck, man?! That's Thomas Hobbes sinful human nature bullshit taken to the extreme. You haven't found out anything of that scientifically, you're just spinning some government education horror stories.

Seriously, now. What the fuck? I give up on following your insane troll logic.

In your desperate hurry to find something to self-righteously condemn, I guess you (wilfully?) misconstrued my point that one cannot blindly assume perpetual good faith in social interactions to mean my declaring one can never expect any good faith in social interactions.

Well; that's a way to talk to people. In my experience it's not a particularly productive one.
(side note: I find myself losing good faith in certain specific social interactions)

Oh, but in any case, you are not qualified to speak to a "scientific" anything.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I wish to refuse the "service" of law enforcement, if that means 60 % of my lifetime income will be taken away as taxes.

You know that taxes aren't just so that our reptiloid overlords can swim in their money piles, right?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I would like if people kept 60 % of their income and people could do business as private security agencies, night watchmen on hire and so on. I'm sure it would be cheaper and better than state police. Governments actually sometimes hire private security agencies to complement the police forces.

Fun fact: that's been tried. For some reasons people didn't stick with it. Maybe read some social history of the 1800s some time.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you don't believe in Communist central planning of economy, you shouldn't believe in central planning of security either. Security is just another commodity to buy on the market. I think Alexis de Tocqueville or Adam Ferguson was worried soldiers might take over the society after a revolution, because they're experts on violence, turns out they didn't, they sold their services on the market.

Bullshit. Personal security is not amenable to strictly market-based solutions. Unless you want to inevitably price some people out of that market. Incidentally, the same logic applies to healthcare. An unchecked profit motive can operate to the detriment of consumers and potential consumers (not to mention other market agents - oh wait, I already did). This is really foundational stuff, man. Seriously.

Markets, of course, are flawed and amoral systems. From where do you propose their regulation and oversight to originate? What do you propose to respond to noncompliance?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Taxation is the price of living in society. Reality has zero sum elements. Maintenance of communal structures is not free. I'm speaking to the principle, not whatever inane non-sequitur Americanism you're probably already jacking off to. I submit to you that 'free riders' and 'tragedy of the commons' are actual, real phenomena; your response?
Ah, more corrections.
Taxation is not a price.

Cost. Term. Condition. This one I'll grant, because you're not a native English speaker, but come on.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Price is a trade concept and is mutually agreed upon.

Actually, most pricing is of the "take it or leave it" variety. When's the last time you haggled?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Taxation is unilateral, it's a theft.

Consent is assumed by virtue of having already made use of the services so provided for. The drawbacks of such a system are outweighed by its being better than any alternative so far considered.

You really do need to take that remedial civics class.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Reality has zero sum elements, but society and economy is an open system. It has inputs from nature. Voluntary interactions are not zero-sum, they're win-win, productive. Win-lose interactions (violence) are zero-sum.

What the actual fuck?

No, voluntary interactions are not perfectly idealised mutual win situations. We can't agree to simultaneously drive the same car to different places, no matter how voluntarily we agree that we'd both really like to do so.

Reality has zero sum elements. Deal with it. Resources are finite. Time is finite. Property is finite. Markets are finite. Please tell me you understand this.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're barely even pretending to engage with what I'm saying, as it happens. I'm not quite sure why that should be, if you're actually interested in discussing things with people. I mean, "everything I say"? I have said very little. I have raised some objections which you promptly (wilfully?) misinterpret and tediously harp on.
There are disciplines of philosophy, law and social sciences (plus law and economy). I don't think you are educated in these.

Not true, as it happens, but I guess I'll see where you're going with this.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think you're so used to being correct in natural sciences like physics, that you don't notice depths of your ignorance in any other areas. The primordial soup of popular knowledge that you keep feeding me will help you about as much as my knowledge of physics with you.
Law and politology are today the closest thing to theology you can find. There is no rooting in empiricism or first rational principles.

Yeah, no matter how much you assert things, that doesn't make them true.

Empiricism and substantiation are not limited to physical sciences.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is some emphasis on internal consistency, but little on the external. This carries over into Keynesian and later economy, where state plays a role. State economy makes literally no sense. People gloss over this, because they must memorize it like parrots, without understanding. There's a great emphasis on history, which isn't good, because history isn't normatively prescriptive, yet law is.

Oh, so we're back to denigrating vast swathes of the population. Good luck with that.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You know about as much about law, economy and philosophy, as a Creationist knows about geology, biology and paleontology.

A bold statement.

"NO U R WRNG CUZ I M SO SMRT TROLOLOLOL" is not a good enough answer. Thanks for playing.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You have all the popular curriculum of government education, which is to say, worse than complete ignorance.

"You disagree with me, therefore you're wrong. No, I don't have to explain myself. Obviously I'm correct, because I think I am. Therefore you must not be. No, I don't need to substantiate my assertions - I already know I'm right."

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I came...

That should at least relieve the tension, after all the stroking off you've done in this thread.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... to the Libertarian position after studying government curricula, law, politology, economy, stateless economy, sociology, history, psychology and of course philosophy, like logic and gnoseology. Turns out that government curriculum is bullshit. It is more politized than evolution in Texas biology textbooks (I wrote something of my thesis about that). That is to say, politics is all politized.

I don't doubt that you've studied some things.

At times I doubt your comprehension, and I seriously question your basic assumptions.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Libertarianism only started making sense only after I studied all of this stuff. Before I thought less or more what you think right now. Heh. I wish I knew any younger people. Looks like there's no point in talking to older people.

Arrogant self-righteous auto-fellatio is not a compelling personality trait.

If your basal mischaracterisation of even my most innocuous statements in this thread represents what you think I think "right now" - no, you sure as shit didn't.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-05-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Nah, all democracies are problematic. It's the principle that sucks, or rather lack of it.
Law-making by central authority is magical thinking. If you disbelieve in Communist central planning of economy, why do you believe in the same thing with law?

Uh, no. Constitutional checks and balances and rule of law are not magic. They're actual things.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So now the problem is contingency planning. Have you ever heard of insurance companies? They're a private sector invention. So is fire brigade and domestic defense. Before democracy, government didn't do pretty much anything for the people. Anyway, what should that contingency be? An invasion of a foreign government?

And history shows that absent outside influences those same private concerns were far worse at providing services and being accountable.

So there's that.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So your definition is vague. Collective decision-making can be anything, including a family planning vacations or a business company deciding on budget.

Indeed.

We might consider how this applies to and is exemplified by the literally thousands of social entities which exist on this planet and the tens of thousands which have existed.

No shit it's a broad term.

Which is why "IT R BAD LOL" is such a stupid and inadequate thing to say.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Max Weber was a sociologist who defined government as a "monopoly on legitimate violence". Let's shorten that as monopoly on violence.

Except for the exceptions and shortcomings, naturally; by removing the word "legitimate" (note: legitimate is obviously subjective) you remove any possible meaning.

Since even you have already explicitly affirmed the existence of such a thing as legitimate violence - in the phenomenon of self-defense.
(note: what constitutes defense - and its justification - is even more hilariously subjective)

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  When I talk about government, I talk about violence, such a big violence, that it can and does create a monopoly. This is what I am against. Monopoly on violence.

I didn't know you were such a fan of civil war. Oligopolies of violence are not an improvement.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Not collective decisions. We will have a great deal of creativity and voluntary cooperation, as long as nobody has a monopoly on violence. I don't know what's worse - if there's a monopoly on violence or if people are trying to gain it or die trying.

You appear to just be making things up.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't believe in non-scientific exceptions. If there's no biological or physical exception, it's magical thinking, cultural value, or some other such bullshit. Exceptions suck. There are no exceptions in philosophy. However, a monopoly on violence is one huge exception.

I cannot parse this. It is incoherent.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Election? A symbolical social ritual, based on wishful thinking that people given absolute power will not be corrupted by it.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of elected officials representing billions of people across thousands of systems across the planet would agree with you.

Oh, wait. They wouldn't. Because that's insane.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Would you say that objective truths exist? I'd say they do. Asserting them makes people very nervous, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Uh, yeah, the thing with that is that merely asserting something doesn't actually count for shit.

You can assert whatever you like. That doesn't mean anyone need take any of it seriously.
(hint: they won't)

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Meaningless social rituals.

Guy, you can't just fucking assert that vapid conspiracist nonsense and expect anyone to take you even remotely seriously.

I mean, sure, you can pretend to yourself that no electoral process anywhere has ever made a substantive difference, but there's no reason for anyone else to follow you into delusion.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  People's monetary and power interests almost always override allegiance to their group back home. Especially in USA. These people all know each other and have a plenty of time to stage the theater.

Oh, shut the hell up about America already. Neither of us live there.

Also, what the crap is "these people" supposed to mean?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If that is what you were taught in your high school civics class, then I'm sorry, you should want your money back. Oh. You can't. Seriously, this is religious-grade bullshit.
You explicitly say here that might makes right.

No, you lovable madman, I did not.

"You explicitly said X, because your words said Y, TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL". Nope, thanks for playing.

Do they teach this shit in e-libertarian boot camp or something? Is there a strawmen 101?

What I said was that rights are meaningless unless enforced.

That's a very simple principle - and I would defy you to find someone who denied it.

In fact, that's so different from the caricature you've built that I can't in good faith consider it a misunderstanding.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is called fascism and was rejected at Nuremberg trial on the grounds that there is such a thing as a "natural law". This "natural law" says what is right or wrong even though it's not explicitly stated in a national law. This "natural law" is an unspoken nod to the discipline of philosophy. Law is actually a bad philosophy not rooted in any principles, just made-up rules with some internal consistency.

Oh, hey, Nuremberg. So now you're fine and dandy with post-hoc victor's justice backed by monopolized deadly force?

Interesting.

But, uh, feel free to keep that "objective morality" fantasy going.

"But my condemnation of Nazis must be objective, because it would make me uncomfortable otherwise!" doesn't work for the theists and it won't work for you.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I guess you mean you're amoral, there is only dog-eat-dog state of nature (dogs don't eat each other in nature anyway) and it's kill or be killed. Only strong hand of the law can rule. Da fuck, man?! That's Thomas Hobbes sinful human nature bullshit taken to the extreme. You haven't found out anything of that scientifically, you're just spinning some government education horror stories.

Seriously, now. What the fuck? I give up on following your insane troll logic.

In your desperate hurry to find something to self-righteously condemn, I guess you (wilfully?) misconstrued my point that one cannot blindly assume perpetual good faith in social interactions to mean my declaring one can never expect any good faith in social interactions.

Well; that's a way to talk to people. In my experience it's not a particularly productive one.
(side note: I find myself losing good faith in certain specific social interactions)

Oh, but in any case, you are not qualified to speak to a "scientific" anything.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I wish to refuse the "service" of law enforcement, if that means 60 % of my lifetime income will be taken away as taxes.

You know that taxes aren't just so that our reptiloid overlords can swim in their money piles, right?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I would like if people kept 60 % of their income and people could do business as private security agencies, night watchmen on hire and so on. I'm sure it would be cheaper and better than state police. Governments actually sometimes hire private security agencies to complement the police forces.

Fun fact: that's been tried. For some reasons people didn't stick with it. Maybe read some social history of the 1800s some time.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you don't believe in Communist central planning of economy, you shouldn't believe in central planning of security either. Security is just another commodity to buy on the market. I think Alexis de Tocqueville or Adam Ferguson was worried soldiers might take over the society after a revolution, because they're experts on violence, turns out they didn't, they sold their services on the market.

Bullshit. Personal security is not amenable to strictly market-based solutions. Unless you want to inevitably price some people out of that market. Incidentally, the same logic applies to healthcare. An unchecked profit motive can operate to the detriment of consumers and potential consumers (not to mention other market agents - oh wait, I already did). This is really foundational stuff, man. Seriously.

Markets, of course, are flawed and amoral systems. From where do you propose their regulation and oversight to originate? What do you propose to respond to noncompliance?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Ah, more corrections.
Taxation is not a price.

Cost. Term. Condition. This one I'll grant, because you're not a native English speaker, but come on.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Price is a trade concept and is mutually agreed upon.

Actually, most pricing is of the "take it or leave it" variety. When's the last time you haggled?

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Taxation is unilateral, it's a theft.

Consent is assumed by virtue of having already made use of the services so provided for. The drawbacks of such a system are outweighed by its being better than any alternative so far considered.

You really do need to take that remedial civics class.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Reality has zero sum elements, but society and economy is an open system. It has inputs from nature. Voluntary interactions are not zero-sum, they're win-win, productive. Win-lose interactions (violence) are zero-sum.

What the actual fuck?

No, voluntary interactions are not perfectly idealised mutual win situations. We can't agree to simultaneously drive the same car to different places, no matter how voluntarily we agree that we'd both really like to do so.

Reality has zero sum elements. Deal with it. Resources are finite. Time is finite. Property is finite. Markets are finite. Please tell me you understand this.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are disciplines of philosophy, law and social sciences (plus law and economy). I don't think you are educated in these.

Not true, as it happens, but I guess I'll see where you're going with this.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think you're so used to being correct in natural sciences like physics, that you don't notice depths of your ignorance in any other areas. The primordial soup of popular knowledge that you keep feeding me will help you about as much as my knowledge of physics with you.
Law and politology are today the closest thing to theology you can find. There is no rooting in empiricism or first rational principles.

Yeah, no matter how much you assert things, that doesn't make them true.

Empiricism and substantiation are not limited to physical sciences.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is some emphasis on internal consistency, but little on the external. This carries over into Keynesian and later economy, where state plays a role. State economy makes literally no sense. People gloss over this, because they must memorize it like parrots, without understanding. There's a great emphasis on history, which isn't good, because history isn't normatively prescriptive, yet law is.

Oh, so we're back to denigrating vast swathes of the population. Good luck with that.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You know about as much about law, economy and philosophy, as a Creationist knows about geology, biology and paleontology.

A bold statement.

"NO U R WRNG CUZ I M SO SMRT TROLOLOLOL" is not a good enough answer. Thanks for playing.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You have all the popular curriculum of government education, which is to say, worse than complete ignorance.

"You disagree with me, therefore you're wrong. No, I don't have to explain myself. Obviously I'm correct, because I think I am. Therefore you must not be. No, I don't need to substantiate my assertions - I already know I'm right."

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I came...

That should at least relieve the tension, after all the stroking off you've done in this thread.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... to the Libertarian position after studying government curricula, law, politology, economy, stateless economy, sociology, history, psychology and of course philosophy, like logic and gnoseology. Turns out that government curriculum is bullshit. It is more politized than evolution in Texas biology textbooks (I wrote something of my thesis about that). That is to say, politics is all politized.

I don't doubt that you've studied some things.

At times I doubt your comprehension, and I seriously question your basic assumptions.

(27-05-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Libertarianism only started making sense only after I studied all of this stuff. Before I thought less or more what you think right now. Heh. I wish I knew any younger people. Looks like there's no point in talking to older people.

Arrogant self-righteous auto-fellatio is not a compelling personality trait.

If your basal mischaracterisation of even my most innocuous statements in this thread represents what you think I think "right now" - no, you sure as shit didn't.

I think it is clear that we are intruding on Luminon's mastrabation. He is not here for a discussion or a debate he just wants to beat off to libertarian porn. I must say I did not think anyone could be less self aware than Frank but fuck if Luminon is not trying his damnedest for that coveted(?) title.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-05-2014, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 06:01 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think it is clear that we are intruding on Luminon's mastrabation. He is not here for a discussion or a debate he just wants to beat off to libertarian porn. I must say I did not think anyone could be less self aware than Frank but fuck if Luminon is not trying his damnedest for that coveted(?) title.
I am amazed at depths of Cjlr's ignorance. He thinks that tragedy of the commons is caused by the market and is solved by the government.
Hint: Tragedy of the commons is typical for violent monopolies of government, public sector and Communism. It's called tragedy of the commons for a reason. Respecting property rights, is the only thing that helps, be they individual or of voluntary community. Turns out the argument is a pure thought experiment with no sociological basis. Stateless societies don't work that way.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI6.html

Your lack of curiosity is notable too. Don't you ever wonder why there is inflation? How does government pay its debts? Why is American's buying power less than 40 years ago? Why is America in nearly constant wars? Why does USA have 25 % of the world's prison population? (out of 5 % of world's population)

Hell, nobody is curious how I came over to Libertarianism. (maybe it's boring) My high school economy lessons went as normal and I was as far to the left as it gets. I didn't vote for the Communist party just because I didn't trust them to carry out their election program. I thought everything you think now. I thought Christian babies were taught to stop asking questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 05:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think it is clear that we are intruding on Luminon's mastrabation. He is not here for a discussion or a debate he just wants to beat off to libertarian porn. I must say I did not think anyone could be less self aware than Frank but fuck if Luminon is not trying his damnedest for that coveted(?) title.
I am amazed at depths of Cjlr's ignorance. He thinks that tragedy of the commons is caused by the market and is solved by the government.
Hint: Tragedy of the commons is typical for violent monopolies of government, public sector and Communism. It's called tragedy of the commons for a reason. Respecting property rights, is the only thing that helps, be they individual or of voluntary community. Turns out the argument is a pure thought experiment with no sociological basis. Stateless societies don't work that way.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI6.html

Your lack of curiosity is notable too. Don't you ever wonder why there is inflation? How does government pay its debts? Why is American's buying power less than 40 years ago? Why is America in nearly constant wars? Why does USA have 25 % of the world's prison population? (out of 5 % of world's population)

Hell, nobody is curious how I came over to Libertarianism. (maybe it's boring) My high school economy lessons went as normal and I was as far to the left as it gets. I didn't vote for the Communist party just because I didn't trust them to carry out their election program. I thought everything you think now.

Go mastrabate elsewhere.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: