A Mercenary Military?

[CAnnoneer]

You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it.

I have never said anything about moral rights of expropriation or murder. Gov is a convenience, an optimal solution to a set of social and biological problems. There is nothing circular about telling you to change the rules of the club or quit the club. You also keep ignoring the simple solution: Leave the club. Instead you protest that the club security is going to manhandle you because you refuse to leave AND refuse to pay the membership fee.

There's nothing irrational about pointing out the flaws in your argument. I even tried to save you time by pointing them out beforehand.

It is irrational to keep repeating that you have accepted no contract while you are abiding by the same contract every second of your existence. It is also irrational to say that all gov in existence are just different in the archon's tunic color, when what you have said would have got you hanged, drawn, and quartered in old England and tortured and shot under stalinism. There is nothing rational about your haphazard assault on the status quo when you are providing NO WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES.

[Len Budney]

You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it.

I have never said anything about moral rights of expropriation or murder. Gov is a convenience...

Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?

There is nothing circular about telling you to change the rules of the club or quit the club.

Yes, there is: I deny ever having joined it, and you keep inviting me to quit! It doesn't get more circular than that.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?

I do not need to justify it on a moral basis to admit its usefulness on a biological basis. Nature does not care about morality or my justification of it. It works the other way around - biological imperatives is mostly what motivates the software people call "morality". The reason is purely Darwinian - a social organization that does not maximize biological success by its adopted software is pushed aside by one that does.

Yes, there is: I deny ever having joined it, and you keep inviting me to quit! It doesn't get more circular than that.

If you never joined it consciously, you are either a foreign national or got the citizenship by birth. If you are a foreigner then you got no basis to complain about having to live by this nation's laws so long as you are here. If you are a citizen, then that case was already covered above. In any case, it is silly to facetize about how you "joined" - the point is you are a member now, but can quit. Again, nothing circular.

[Len Budney]

Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?

I do not need to justify it on a moral basis to admit its usefulness on a biological basis.

Was it unclear that the entire discussion was about a moral justification? I'll point out that it isn't very useful to its victims. You apparently believe that it's beneficial to you, and you cordially invite anyone who disagrees to suck it. That's the "might makes right" argument I pointed out earlier.

...it is silly to facetize about how you "joined" - the point is you are a member now, but can quit. Again, nothing circular.

I deny being a member now. You once again affirm that I am one by inviting me to quit. That's not only circular, but it's a spectacularly boring version of the circular argument. Merle Haggard makes good music but lousy logic.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Was it unclear that the entire discussion was about a moral justification? I'll point out that it isn't very useful to its victims. You apparently believe that it's beneficial to you, and you cordially invite anyone who disagrees to suck it. That's the "might makes right" argument I pointed out earlier.

If the status quo were beneficial just to me and nobody else, I'd be dead in a second. The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people. It is even beneficial to you, although you choose not to admit it.

I deny being a member now. You once again affirm that I am one by inviting me to quit. That's not only circular, but it's a spectacularly boring version of the circular argument.

Are you a US citizen?

[Len Budney]

The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people.

I find that statement interesting. It hints at another circular argument, because if I ask how you know it's "beneficial to most people," you'll say, "because it remains." But the statement is clearly false, unless you suggest that the Soviet government was "beneficial to most people," or that the Third Reich was, or Mao's government, etc.

It's a truism that the government would promptly fall if enough people wanted it gone badly enough. But that's a far cry from saying that not overthrowing the government is proof that most people want it. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people.

I find that statement interesting. It hints at another circular argument, because if I ask how you know it's "beneficial to most people," you'll say, "because it remains." But the statement is clearly false, unless you suggest that the Soviet government was "beneficial to most people," or that the Third Reich was, or Mao's government, etc.

Actually, all examples you have given are ones in which the respective governments were supported by a large portion of the population and tolerated by most of the population. There are people that present such dictatorships as hugely unpopular, but the reality is quite different and less convenient. Most members benefited from the club from the viewpoint of what they got w.r.t. what they had before that. And so long as they benefited, they offered support. When they felt they did not keep benefiting, the support was withdrawn. If anything, these examples prove my point.

People are far more calculating than you give them credit.

[Len Budney]

Actually, all examples you have given are ones in which the respective governments were supported by a large portion of the population and tolerated by most of the population. There are people that present such dictatorships as hugely unpopular, but the reality is quite different and less convenient...

If so, then that takes care of the last of your argument. I have no interest whatsoever in a majority-supported immoral regime such as the ones I've mentioned (and plenty of others besides). If your overall assessment is correct, then you merely prove my point: humans have not yet evolved beyond the stage of immoral beasts. If so, I pity my species.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

If your overall assessment is correct, then you merely prove my point: humans have not yet evolved beyond the stage of immoral beasts. If so, I pity my species.

Welcome to Planet Earth, home of Homo Sapiens, a species terrible and magnificent.

But, you are suggesting that there are viable alternatives offered by evolution. Please propose a species modus operandi (a.k.a. morality), which is ecologically stable.

[Gewehr98]

This is funny, it's so sad.

I deny being a member now.

Nothing wrong with renouncing one's citizenship.  It wouldn't be the first time that's happened in these United States. 

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_229.html

In the meantime, I'm starting to believe that Mercedesrules has a twin brother.   

[Len Budney]

This is funny, it's so sad.

Nothing funny about it: someone claims he has the power to take my property, and if he wishes to violate my person or even kill me. I deny it. Cannoneer can't come up with a moral justification for anyone having such a power, and finally he declared that no moral justification whatsoever is necessary--i.e., he has either renounced morality entirely, or defined "right" to be synonymous with "might." I'd be surprised if even many statists accept that; most that I've met do believe that morality is on their side, and they care that it should be so. On that note, see here.

Nothing wrong with renouncing one's citizenship.

I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Cannoneer tried to use "citizen" as a synonym for "signatory to the 'social contract'," but he was begging the question: he never proved the existence of this "contract" in the first place. He just keeps reaffirming it in various words, and insisting that I'm obligated to "leave" or "quit" or "renounce" to escape this "contract" whose existence he has not yet proven. That's what we call "circular reasoning."

The reason he's having trouble is that the "contract" doesn't exist. If you claim I contracted to paint your house, and I deny it, you can prove the existence of the contract by showing your copy, for example. The same cannot be said of the "social contract." Instead people attempt to structure it as a "shrink-wrap license," claiming that one demonstrates one's acceptance of the agreement by breathing, or not moving to Belgium.

--Len.

[Paddy]

I deny being a member now.

Yet you exercise the privileges of membership, including use of the currency and highways, both government property.  Your argument is inconsistent.

[CAnnoneer]

This is funny, it's so sad.

I agree. Hundreds of millions out there dream about becoming Americans. 2 million people risk dying to sneak in illegally every year. Yet, we somehow home-grow a crop of malcontent youths that take all privileges (granted to them at birth) as "background" and think the membership is oppressive due to the few associated liabilities. 

[CAnnoneer]

Nothing funny about it: someone claims he has the power to take my property, and if he wishes to violate my person or even kill me. I deny it. Cannoneer can't come up with a moral justification for anyone having such a power, and finally he declared that no moral justification whatsoever is necessary

Sorry but you cannot claim any moral highground. You enjoy a series of privileges "by default", through "the enormous personal feat" of getting born in America, privileges for which you pay very little to nothing, privileges which others have fought off and fight off a horde of aholes to establish and preserve, but privileges which you either despise or refuse to recognize. On top of that you playing semantics games here about how you have not signed any contract, while you obey it and exploit it every day, whether you wish to admit it or not. That's like living in your parents' house on their dime, but complaining that you have to do a chore once in a while because you have not signed any contract that says you must.

--i.e., he has either renounced morality entirely, or defined "right" to be synonymous with "might." I'd be surprised if even many statists accept that; most that I've met do believe that morality is on their side, and they care that it should be so. On that note, see here.

Anyone can blabber about what is morally right till the sun grows cold. The reality is that without might to protect the right, you get neither.

I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course you consider it "irrelevant". Something given has no value. Heinlein is smurking in his grave.

[Len Budney]

Sorry but you cannot claim any moral highground. You enjoy a series of privileges "by default", through "the enormous personal feat" of getting born in America...

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you claiming that if I were born in Somalia, something about what I said above would be different?

But even that's beside the point: to claim that our prosperity is due to the US government is nuts. Our prosperity is in spite of the US government. What prosperity we have was created by free enterprise. The only fortunate thing about our government is that in times past we had less of it: thanks to the "less of it," the market was able to function. Whenever government rose in the US, the market, and prosperity with it, declined. And vice versa. The genius of the founders was in limiting government. They didn't limit it enough, and it has since metastasized, but their pruning it back in the 18th century was a benefit for which I am grateful.

It's a modern aberration that people who claim to be Jefferson's intellectual heirs get Jefferson exactly backwards, and now see the government as the fount of our blessings rather than "a dangerous servant and a terrifying master."
 

Anyone can blabber about what is morally right till the sun grows cold. The reality is that without might to protect the right, you get neither.

Sure. And people get killed, women raped, Jews gassed, Batutsis slashed to death, etc., etc.. So what's your point?

I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course you consider it "irrelevant". Something given has no value. Heinlein is smurking in his grave.

Um, reread The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Heinlein was on my side.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you claiming that if I were born in Somalia, something about what I said above would be different?

You need to spend some time living in failed societies. That's the only way for you to really get it.

But even that's beside the point: to claim that our prosperity is due to the US government is nuts. Our prosperity is in spite of the US government.

Certain policies and laws pose a predicament but the overall social structure and system of laws is what enables the entrepreneurial spirit to materialize success. There are smart, determined people in other countries as well. A major reason why those countries are not nearly as successful is the inadequate system of laws and/or lack of sufficient enforcement.

What prosperity we have was created by free enterprise.

Free enterprise cannot exist in a vacuum, without a stable system of government to enforce laws and contracts. Think about it long enough, you will convince yourself in that truism.

Sure. And people get killed, women raped, Jews gassed, Batutsis slashed to death, etc., etc.. So what's your point?

My point is your stance is naive and inconsistent when you criticize the application of might, when the enforcement of the rules of any morality is dependent upon it.

Um, reread The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Heinlein was on my side.

I have. I was referring to Starship Troopers. As far as the Moon goes, do you seriously contend that Free Luna was pure libertarian? If anything, Prof de la Paz is exactly the kind of tricky undemocratic manipulator that libertarians deplore. If anything, Free Luna is a nice demonstration why pure libertarianism does not work, cannot be established, and cannot be maintained even if established by non-libertarian methods.

[Iapetus]

just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors,

Sorry to interrupt such such a fascinating discussion, but if that is true generally, then my education has been severely lacking.

[Len Budney]

Free enterprise cannot exist in a vacuum...

True.

without a stable system of government...

False.

My point is your stance is naive and inconsistent when you criticize the application of might, when the enforcement of the rules of any morality is dependent upon it.

No: you are conflating defensive force, which is every creature's birthright, and "might" in general, which is not.

...do you seriously contend that Free Luna was pure libertarian?...

Never said it was. But the book articulates perfectly the anarchist case. Just a few quotes follow.

--Len.



"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them to obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." p63

"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I'll buy it." p184

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." p230

"You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys." p231

"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that is forbidden." p287

"At one time kings were anointed by Deity, so the problem was to see to it that Deity chose the right candidate. In this age the myth is 'the will of the people' ... but the problem changes only superficially."

"I listened to some sessions, then cornered Prof and asked what in Bog's name he was up to? 'Thought you didn't want any government. Have you heard those nuts since you turned them loose?'... But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. 'Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?'"

[CAnnoneer]

Len, you are taking Heinlein too literally. He was a thinker who wanted to provoke discussion by offering fascinating and bizarre alternatives. That is why he wrote science fiction, not history works or anthropology. That is why he has these wacky societies in his novels. That is why he also included heterosexual alternatives to traditional marriage in the Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you read him carefully, you will see he was making fun of himself, and his own ideas because of obvious in-built contradictions. The book is certainly not to be taken too seriously, like a holy writ or anything.

Let's just see what crimes your band of anarchists/libertarians committed: Multiple counts of
1) murder
2) conspiracy to commit murder
3) conspiracy to commit rape
3) theft
4) conspiracy to commit theft
5) electoral fraud
6) financial fraud
7) obstruction of justice, falsifying evidence

And this is just the list off the top of my head. Unless under your anarchist system you condone such behavior, you will have an impossible time establishing and maintaining the Free Luna system.

Finally, the Prof is an anarchist only in his own words. In his deeds, he was the de-facto dictator of Free Luna, or at least the senior tetrarch. That's one of the biggest indications to the reader that Heinlein was poking fun at the world and had no illusions about a society structured like that. Also observe that at the end of the book, Mike goes silent and Free Luna moves towards the traditional gov institutions of earthworm style, albeit as an independent state. So, the Prof did not build an anarchist or libertarian society to last; he just fomented and directed a revolution to win independence. And that is Heinlein's final lesson.

[Len Budney]

Len, you are taking Heinlein too literally.

Um, we're not discussing the Bible here. I cite the bits I do not because they're holy writ, but because they're correct.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

without a stable system of government...

False.

Please give an example of a working laissez-faire system in the absence of a stable system of gov, which was not ultimately displaced by a society that enjoyed both. You must internalize the truism that long-term successful business and society require a gov enforcing contracts at the very least. If there is no gov, businesses and individuals will take matters into their own hands, resulting in bloody feuds and far more violence, while in the long run the businesses suffer.

No: you are conflating defensive force, which is every creature's birthright, and "might" in general, which is not.

They are different applications of might. You might thing they are different ethically, but they are not different physically. There is no functional difference between "offensive" and "defensive" might, other than "who started it". Once it starts, violence is violence.

In any case, the ethical difference is irrelevant, because there are no guarantees that your opponents would share your views of right and wrong (incidentally, one of Prof's quotes is a direct indication of that). When they don't, your system collapses. Then conditional power devolves into coercive power (read J.K. Galbraith) and you slug it out. That is why even your society will ultimately be based on "might is functionally right".

"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them to obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." p63

So, anyone who thinks your existence is an encroachment to their freedom is justified in taking you out, all rules out the window.

"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I'll buy it." p184

Spend some time living abroad. You will convince yourself what you buy in American taxes.

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." p230

Literally correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. You are not forced to pay taxes because you have the option of opting out at any time. It is your choice to remain a citizen, and you choose to remain because deep inside you know it is worth it to you to do so. The fact that you refuse to admit is one of the inconsistencies of your position.

"You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys." p231

Only if you allow it to expand. Tax cuts that are just a few years old are a counterexample.

"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that is forbidden." p287

I need the context because it makes no sense as is. Page does not help because I got a different edition.

"At one time kings were anointed by Deity, so the problem was to see to it that Deity chose the right candidate. In this age the myth is 'the will of the people' ... but the problem changes only superficially."

If anything, this is a strike against anarchy.

"I listened to some sessions, then cornered Prof and asked what in Bog's name he was up to? 'Thought you didn't want any government. Have you heard those nuts since you turned them loose?'... But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. 'Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?'"

So the public is a "mob of retarded children"? I guess they cannot be allowed free choice, but need an archon to make decisions for them. You are contradicting yourself.

[Gewehr98]

Um, we're not discussing the Bible here. I cite the bits I do not because they're holy writ, but because they're correct.

Posted like a true power user of the former ARPANet, now known as the Internet.  "They're correct" - Damn right! In your anarchy-shaded world, I'll bet they are.  

Jeebus.  There are a bazillion anarchist/libertarian/Ted Kaczynski forum sites out there, and we're graced with this stuff here on APS.  Go figure.

[Len Budney]

So the public is a "mob of retarded children"? I guess they cannot be allowed free choice, but need an archon to make decisions for them. You are contradicting yourself.

To direct their own lives, they're perfectly capable. Elitists get ticked because people spend more time playing cards and drinking beer, and less time at the opera, than they'd like.

To direct other's lives, they're "retarded children." The elitists would force us to watch opera; others would force us to play cards and drink beer. Nobody is competent to rule others' lives.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

There are a bazillion anarchist/libertarian/Ted Kaczynski forum sites out there, and we're graced with this stuff here on APS.  Go figure.

I don't think that's a very appropriate response for an armed polite society. I suggest that one may not rob, assault or kill me, and you compare me to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Would it then be appropriate, since you do advocate confiscation of my property by force, to make snide references to "storm troopers"? If so, I can probably come up with some sort of humorous pun linking a gewehr to a sturmgewehr to the sturmabteilung who carried them, or some such.

But I thought that sort of thing was contrary to forum rules.

It is interesting to note, however, that when you can't come up with a moral justification for forcible confiscation of others' property, you resort to such a vicious ad hominem as linking your disputant to Ted Kaczynski.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

To direct other's lives, they're "retarded children." The elitists would force us to watch opera; others would force us to play cards and drink beer. Nobody is competent to rule others' lives.

But that's the problem, isn't it? It does not matter if they are competent or not - they believe they are competent. Moreover, they would try to establish a gov as a means to resolve conflicts and a means of self-defense at the least. YOU have to MAKE them abandon the concept of gov, which approach in itself is contradictory to your stated views. So, to have a chance to accomplish and maintain what you want, you will have to undermine and negate your own principles.

Even if you somehow manage to solve the above problem (I think it is practically impossible), you are still stuck with a society where all conflicts are resolved at the muzzle of a gun. So, then, after a lot of violence, a subsection of the population will establish a gov to defend themselves or prey upon others, or both, and they will win over the disorganized anarchists in the long run. You are back to square one.

In any case, it seems like I keep repeating myself in different ways, while you keep jumping from subtopic to subtopic without addressing my practicality arguments. As I said before, <rolleyes>, you have to provide WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES to the status quo, to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you come across as just whining about what you see.