Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:24 PM
FLETCH2
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:32 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:On one end, you have a mere threat of violence.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:38 PM
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
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. .
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:53 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:36 AM
CANTTAKESKY
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.
Quote: THEN you have active disapproval: punishment of the threat of punishment.
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.
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?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:14 AM
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:15 AM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:09 AM
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
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:47 AM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: So neither libertarian nor anarchic society is violence-free.
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.
Quote:I wonder how long it will be before those "well liked" individuals effectively run the town?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:45 AM
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.
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
RUE
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?"
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.
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_physical_force
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:53 PM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:09 PM
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:17 PM
Quote:I said at the outset that this was the DEFINITION of government that is the foundation of most political science theory.
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
Quote: You don't recognize that the government is ultimately just as violent as the RWA's, if not more.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: So how can you support any government at all?
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:03 PM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 PM
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).
Quote:You support preventative violence. I support punitive violence. See the difference?
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).
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:25 PM
SERGEANTX
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:56 PM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:24 AM
Quote:To live outside the law, you must be honest.
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?
Quote: Yeah, the overall level of violence in your system is higher because it allows the initial violence and then responds with more violence.
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.
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?
Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:47 AM
Quote:You both would support the use of violence/threat of violence on innocent citizens to prevent your specific versions of immorality.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:03 AM
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:07 AM
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?
Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:40 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:51 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:11 AM
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:08 AM
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.
Quote:Any society with rules, even crypto-anarchist ones ultimately enforce them with the threat of violence
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:00 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:02 AM
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:38 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:41 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:51 AM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:06 PM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:14 PM
Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:18 PM
CITIZEN
Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:12 PM
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:43 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL