Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians by HKCavalier

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

This is where I think libertarians have limited imagination.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Ooops, real life calls,

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Nah, more along the lines of consent government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT, I damn sure DO mind paying for!

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

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

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

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

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

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

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:36 AM

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:39 AM

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:42 AM

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

That is an interesting and very legitimate question.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:15 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine this scenario in Fremworld

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

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

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

scenario 1:

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

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

Scenario 2:

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

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

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

What actually happened was that Fred has been suffering from intense pain, exacerbated by having to run his small holding single handed. A proud man he's tried to keep that from everyone. That is in part why he hired Barney to move his hay, he could have asked a neighbour but he didnt want to be seen as taking charity.

Barney's truck has a mechanical problem and broke down. Barney goes to Fred to try and explain, but it's late in teh day, Fred is tired, in pain and irritated. he accuses Barney of stealing from him and threatens to tell his neighbours about it. Barney says some things about his brothers, intended to indicate that he could make this right. Fred assumes this to be a threat and is suddenly fearful. When Barney reaches to his belt to retrieve some coin Fred assumes Barney is reaching for a weapon and shoots him.

In a civil society both parties present their cases in an atmosphere that is amicable. If the "court of public opinion" threatens to upset a case they move the venue to a place where a trail can be held based just on facts.

In Fremworld (or at least the CTS version) each person assesses the situation and takes action based on his personal force spectrum. If that is excessive (as it was for Fred) then that is judged in part by the community based on their take on the other person. I wonder how long it will be before those "well liked" individuals effectively run the town? You've seen the old westerns? the richest guy decides everything until John Wayne sorts him out... maybe that's what they think will reballance things?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:50 AM

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

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

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

Anarchists use violence in response to violence itself.

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:02 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

So, you tell me - is that violent ?

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:43 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You left out this part:

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

Capisce ?

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:09 PM

An observation

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

Quote:

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

......

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

Clever but not helpful.

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

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

If we look at the definition above

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

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

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

3) a high level of non conformity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

So how can you support any government at all?

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:44 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:49 PM

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell me.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:25 PM

SERGEANTX

I don't even wanna argue over state religion.

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

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

the corollary is worth consideration.

SergeantX

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are again two ways of dealing with potential transgressors who would clog up that service for everyone. One would be preventative before causing harm, and the other punitive after causing harm. You can tell people that to use a service, they have to abide by a certain set of rules such as no parking, whether it causes harm or not. Or you can tell people that there are no rules, but if their parking causes harm, they will be refused further service on the road. (Of course, I prefer the latter.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

Oh, that's right- nowhere.

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:03 AM

SERGEANTX

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

Only if you miss the point.

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

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

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

SergeantX

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:40 AM

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Details.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:52 AM

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

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

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

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

It's interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:49 AM

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

The Amish and Quakers would disagree.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:09 AM

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

The Amish and Quakers would disagree.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:38 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:51 AM

Isn't that "Old Spice?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:14 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:18 PM

CITIZEN

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:12 PM

SERGEANTX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SergeantX

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:43 PM