next »

[Paul Eres]

oh, forgot to reply to this one:

"Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free"[6] should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and disobeys the leadership, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression. Thus, enforcement of law, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character."

So yes, libertarianism has been known to skew the definition of law into force into violence, showing their anarchistic roots.  There are times when restraining someone or even physically harming someone is ethically justifiable.

"One more statement on coercion: Coercion is only a negative if it results in a negative outcome that harms society as a whole. Economic freedom is only a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. A society's purpose is to increase quality of life for its members as a whole, not to allow anyone to do whatever they please without regard to the ramifications of their actions."

There's also the fact that taxation and laws are violence but applying dire market forces on people to drive profits, putting competing companies out of business causing them to lose their shirts, or even straight wage-slavery is painted as non-coercive because "free market", despite it being just as painful a force.  You can avoid breaking a law, but you can't typically avoid needing food or medicine.

"
The key to a lot of libertarian thought is that it's basically a semantics game. Coercion is not coercion if it's not a direct threat of force. The fact that "or starve to death" can in practice have equal coercive power is immaterial to them. It's not "real" coercion. Enforcing property rights using force so that you will starve and die isn't government coercion, either, apparently.

Similarly, quasi-government-like-entities as well as quasi-slavery can exist in many proposed libertarian systems. But that's OK because, even though there's an entity that functions just like a government or a mechanism that functions just like slavery, it's not actually a government or slavery. It's not-slavery, which is just like slavery, but it was brought about in a rights-respecting way using acceptable libertarian social mechanisms like debt, "consensual" contracts, etc.. The fact that slavery, by any other name, is still more or less slavery and just as bad doesn't enter. So long as the original premises were moral and valid, and the reasoning is sound, then ALL outcomes are also moral and valid, no matter how monstrous they appear prima facie. This is the basis of many, many libertarian viewpoints.

Similarly, a well-functioning "statist" system where people are happy and free is unimaginable to a libertarian because, by definition, true freedom and justice can only exist without "government coercion." You might practically be free, and it might be indistinguishable from the ideal outcome in libertopia, but it's not real, purestrain freedom and real, libertarian justice. It's a pale approximation, even though it may be identical in almost every respect. This is why libertarians, though they claim to be "realists," are actually insanely "idealist." A libertarian would actually be mad about a good system that worked well with just outcomes simply because the theoretical bases for that system are not perfect deductions based on their immutable premises. "

most of this has nothing to do with anything i said; i'm not a libertarian, you seem to be mistaken about that here (but i'm not a statist either: one can be neither libertarian nor statist). so almost all of this misses the point entirely, since i don't agree with libertarians on the points you are arguing against, you're arguing against a ghost or something. but one point:

i can understand the idea that restraining, imprisoning, or killing someone can in some cases be "ethically justifiable" -- in various systems of ethics. but even when it's ethically justifiable, it's still force, it's still violence. i don't really think that's even deniable. even if you kill the person most deserving of killing in the world, even if you shoot someone before he shoots a pile of children, even if you literally force the weapon out of someone's hand before they kill your mother, that's *still* a use of force on your part. it's justifiable violence, but still violence. and pacifists who are complete pacifists and not some compromise pacifist would reject even justifiable forms of violence, including self-defense or the defense of others. so i don't really see how you can get around the idea that complete pacifists are necessarily anarchists (a la gandhi and tolstoy)

[Capntastic]

I was mainly arguing against libertarianism while dealing with the 'law as violence' quote because some conceptions of libertarian ideal are founded on what they call the Non-Aggression Principle.  I'm not arguing against your point of view (which are sort of inscrutable) so much as I'm arguing against libertarianism's ability to create a system that benefits anyone but those in power.  This is a Ron Paul thread, after all, your apparent stance against laws in general just happened to match up in this case.

Further, I'm not saying that enacting a law by, say, putting someone in a squad car isn't a use of force.  It is!  The cop might even be a shithead and bang the person being arrested on the frame of the door!  That would be violence, and pretty bad!  Regardless, I'm fairly certain that in most discussions pertaining to government and politics, we can take it as given that laws are going to be, if you'll allow, a necessary evil.  Anarchy doesn't have a tendency to work, as history has shown us- especially if your goal is to minimize 'violence'.

If we're going to consider all forms of coercion as violence, are speech, texts, education, beauty, ugliness, etc, violence?  They are things that can coerce you into changing your mind or actions.  These things can all have a negative effect on a person.

The third thing I quoted is specifically about how negative forces, with the 'freedom' to choose between "work two jobs or you and your family starve" can be just as coercive as "work two jobs or i'll kill your family".

I can totally understand the desire to want to have total freedom.  But, in practice, certain theoretical freedoms tend to, in the world eliminate practical ones.  If a bakery has the freedom to bulk their product up with sawdust-- and not mention it to the public, your freedom to get what you think you're buying vanishes.  Yes, the buyer can research their product, but that shifts the burden, and the risk, onto the buyer.  They now have to find out who sells untainted bread.  If a company has the freedom to pay unlivable wages, you have the choice of, again, work two jobs or your family starves.  It creates more suffering.  Note that in a system where the baker can't sell you bullshit and companies can't work you to death in a wage treadmill, you'd still have the freedom to opt into those things of your own accord.  You can pay someone, right now, in the real world, to cook you cadmium laced bread if you really want.  You can work two or more jobs if you really really want.

[Capntastic]

so i don't really see how you can get around the idea that complete pacifists are necessarily anarchists (a la gandhi and tolstoy)

I don't believe I ever made this argument?  I said that someone who is in a position to help someone that requires it and chooses not to, lacks empathy.  Somehow you turned this into me saying that someone 'forcing' them to help is inherently anti-pacifist.  Surely we both agree that someone bringing a freezing man in from off their doorstep is a good thing.  All things being equal, what would be the cause of someone simply ignoring the dying man rather than apathy?

You also brought up pacifism in the first place. I agree that while it is an ideal that should certainly be strived for, I disagree that it can be the foundation of a working society.  I also disagree that coercion of any form, such as restraining someone as harmlessly as possible, is 'violence' of the sort that negates pacifism.  In the general scope, pacifism doesn't mean 'pure pacifism'-- many pacifists believe that self defense, preventing the harm of others, and by extension, enforcement of laws, are wholly justifiable.  As you said, there are times when it is justifiable.  

Regardless, I put forth that a pacifist (if given the choice) would create a system where everyone's needs are met without coercion.  You assumed this to be me saying that pacifism is inherently linked with 'statism'.  I mainly meant it as some sort of "what if" scenario.  Perhaps our omnipotent pacifist devises a system where the genetic factors for psychopathy, greed, other negative human traits, are removed.  Perhaps we have a global society of biologically altruistic folk.  I dunno.

But yes, if you are going to define pacifists as pure pacifists who would not stop anyone doing anything in any circumstance, ever, then yes, under your specific conception of those terms, pacifists are anarchists.  In general parlance, you can be anti-war and anti-killing and anti-fighting and still think laws are useful societal tools.

[eclectocrat]

Lolz, late to the party. I want to play while swearing a lot.

I live in China, therefore I know everything. People here want the same shit as every normal 'westerner', and they'll openly and unashamedly say that China should start a war in order to assert it's presence on the world stage. They don't give-a-fuck about the moral implications because they fling shit for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and they'd happily nuke the fuck out of anyone if it meant that they can watch retarded soaps on a 64" flatscreen during the evenings.

BTW, all that cheap shit you need in order to live above 'the poverty line'? They were made by people ten times poorer than you in some fuckhole part of the world which was domineered by greedy western businessmen for generations, while their relatives were raped, bombed, tortured, experimented on and basically treated worse than GTA3 NPC's.

Guess what, there's not enough for everyone. Anyone spouting the word 'should', should STFU, because there is no should, nor ideal, nor equation that means a damn piece of shit to anyone who is living in reality. Some people are skilled or intelligent, but most of our life and economic position is a result of enormous amounts of luck and institutionalized violence. In such a world welfare makes sense, you know to compensate for rolling a critical failure, unfortunately there's just not enough shit to go around for everyone. Vote for Ron Paul, or don't, we're only delaying the inevitable collision between human appetites and planetary reality (a big fucking catastrophe).

Mr. Eres is right (several pages ago, I didn't care to read all the craziness), when he said in essence, that disengagement from the system is the only "real" way to affect change, everything else is just shuffling pieces on a gameboard.

One thing I can say about Mr. Paul is that he makes a lot of damn sense when talking about American foreign policy. I don't know anything else.

[googoogjoob]

Guess what, there's not enough for everyone.

you realize that a) the value of goods or services are entirely subjective, b) not everyone works to the best of their abilities to create value under the current system, and c) even with the current amount of money and shit, if it were evenly distributed, everyone could live at around the same level as eastern europeans do now

there's no reason for there to "not be enough for everyone" other than that without scarcity (artificial or otherwise) capitalism cannot work

[John Sandoval]

there's no reason for there to "not be enough for everyone" other than that without scarcity (artificial or otherwise) capitalism cannot work

i question this

[googoogjoob]

there's no reason for there to "not be enough for everyone" other than that without scarcity (artificial or otherwise) capitalism cannot work

i question this

i don't mean it's deliberate, like there's a secret cabal of corporation owners and bankers conspiring consciously to make sure people are always starving

i mean that, when you ask a question like "why doesn't company X ship a bunch of food to a place where people are starving", the answer is, "because they would lose money by doing so", and this is normalized enough that most people accept it

[eclectocrat]

i mean that, when you ask a question like "why doesn't company X ship a bunch of food to a place where people are starving", the answer is, "because they would lose money by doing so", and this is normalized enough that most people accept it

I wish it were that simple. The supply chain for food is so incredibly dependent on actually scarce resources (notably oil), that there is literally not enough to support consumption at 'normal' western levels for the population of the planet.

People are looking at scarcity or supply as the problem, when the real problem is unsustainable demand.

EDIT: Welfare is about redistribution, that's the only reason I posted my rant, because despite the brutal attacks Pompi Pompi received earlier in the thread, it really is about "making everyone wealthy", where wealth means food and energy security. People don't notice that your food and energy security really does come at the cost of others, due to institutionalized violence (puppet dictators, CIA coup's, blackmail, etc). Again, Paul Eres' statement of disengagement is the closest thing to a solution because it stops moving scarce chips around the playing board (welfare, taxes), and focuses on real production of your own food and energy security.

BTW. China is coming for your playing pieces USA, and there's not enough to share...

[Mikademus]

there's no reason for there to "not be enough for everyone" other than that without scarcity (artificial or otherwise) capitalism cannot work

i question this

You shouldn't. Capitalism is a model created in search for an answer to how to redistribute scarce resources. Scarcity is at the very centre of what capitalism is all about, as it is for socialism, communism, and the various hybrids, other systems, and points on the scales between these.

From an economic perspective, without scarcity there is no need for capitalism or indeed any other system for the redistribution of scarce resources.

And since we today live in a world characterised by relative abundance, the sum of institutions with a vested interest in the current order--perhaps unintentionally--in effect increasingly acts to create a situation of artificial scarcity.

[googoogjoob]

i mean that, when you ask a question like "why doesn't company X ship a bunch of food to a place where people are starving", the answer is, "because they would lose money by doing so", and this is normalized enough that most people accept it

I wish it were that simple. The supply chain for food is so incredibly dependent on actually scarce resources (notably oil), that there is literally not enough to support consumption at 'normal' western levels for the population of the planet.

People are looking at scarcity or supply as the problem, when the real problem is unsustainable demand.

who said anything about normal western levels i just mean enough food that you don't die

anyway, thus far technological advances have outpaced malthusian catastrophe (at least by a little) but i won't pretend to have any actual solutions to the issue- i just mean that right now there is an awful lot of suffering that could be eliminated if people didn't care so much about profit

EDIT: Welfare is about redistribution, that's the only reason I posted my rant, because despite the brutal attacks Pompi Pompi received earlier in the thread, it really is about "making everyone wealthy", where wealth means food and energy security.

the fact that basic physical needs are considered to be "wealth" is a huge problem with this shit and with getting people to realize that it is a problem: if you frame it as POOR PEOPLE WANT TO STEAL MY MONEY vs POOR PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO NOT STARVE it's a lot different

ANYWAY this thread is supposed to be about ron paul right i don't even know where this is going

[eclectocrat]

Because people want to have the same things you do, like strawberries in january or tropical fruit in temperate climates. That's what I mean about normal western levels. That's what I mean about unsustainable demand being the problem. I agree with the position of what should be normal and what should constitute wealth vs. necessity, but that requires those in the first world to reduce their demand for food and energy, so that others can have it. Just by going to a normal restaurant we really are 'stealing' resources from others, our whole society is built on that.

We've got to stop having arguments about how to distribute resources (socialism vs. capitalism) and realize that we just need more, or we need to consume a lot (a lot!) less. Hence, vote for whoever you wish, but growing a garden and buying food from local farmers has more of a real impact on the underlying problem.

[Superb Joe]

Ron paul

[Paul Eres]

@capntastic - anarchy has actually worked in every case i know of far better than the current system works (but that's a low target, since the current system doesn't work *at all*; it's a complete trainwreck). consider ancient greece, which was an anarchic system (small competing city-states without a central government telling them all what to do; each city was its own government). it brought us a good deal of philosophy and political and scientific advancement, and is probably the best example i know of anarchy working. it only went downhill after athens and sparta got too powerful and tried to take over all the other city-states and form a central state

i also believe there's a difference between voluntary and involuntary coercion: writing a book is voluntary, threatening to hit someone with a book is violent. the difference seems pretty clear. both are an attempt to get someone to do something, but one is voluntary, and the other isn't

the rest of your post is you acting like you're talking to a baby so i can probably safely ignore that -- you're trying to explain basic things like "But, in practice, certain theoretical freedoms tend to, in the world eliminate practical ones." as if i'd never read the total corpus of classic western philosophy (at least, up through the 19th century -- i haven't gotten to the modern ones yet). i'm quite familiar with what you are talking about; just because i don't agree doesn't mean i never heard of it before

but specifically regarding: "I said that someone who is in a position to help someone that requires it and chooses not to, lacks empathy.  Somehow you turned this into me saying that someone 'forcing' them to help is inherently anti-pacifist." -- you said that ron paul lacked empathy, despite serving the poor, as a doctor, for free, for many years, simply because he does not believe that other doctors should be forced to serve the poor for free. i asked if that would mean that anyone who believes force should be avoided also lacks empathy. so you seem to be answering yes: that anyone who is not willing to force others, involuntarily, into doing good, lacks empathy, *even if* they help others voluntarily and encourage others to help others through voluntarily methods

[Mikademus]

@capntastic - anarchy has actually worked in every case i know of far better than the current system works (but that's a low target, since the current system doesn't work *at all*; it's a complete trainwreck). consider ancient greece, which was an anarchic system (small competing city-states without a central government telling them all what to do; each city was its own government). it brought us a good deal of philosophy and political and scientific advancement, and is probably the best example i know of anarchy working. it only went downhill after athens and sparta got too powerful and tried to take over all the other city-states and form a central state

The Greek city-states, just as f.i. those of Renaissance Italy, weren't anarchies internally. They varied from military tyrannies through oligarchies and theologian despotisms to free-men democracies. You're describing the traditional political-science world-view where the world is an anarchy of nations, the analogy being a billiard table where countries are balls. Since there wasn't a "Greece" as such then it is a misnomer to call the area an anarchy.

Next, the principal places for emergence of the classical philosophy we still teach today was Athens (home of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics and the Pertipathets), today upheld as the first democracy and the very origin of the word. And to be pedantic, the previous names that inspired the Athenian triad (f.i. Thales, Anaximandros and others) came from Ionia or other places in Anatolia, which is to the west- and south-west of current Turkey.

[PaleFox]

fuck ron paul