Libertarian?

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Libertarian?

Would luv some feedback from folks on this.

Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check.

From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world.

Thoughts?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:

qbg wrote:

For non-free market methods, an example might be power lines; a community might decide that it would want to give one company a monopoly in power in its area to prevent unneeded duplication of resources.

Anyone who built a second set of power lines could only be wasting their own money doing so.

Quote:
Also, a community may not wish to have some companies invest in their area even if they wish to.

Then the community can all pay everyone some money to not let those companies in. But if I buy land, my neighbors do not own it and have no right to decide what to do with it, it's mine, not theirs. They can simply boycott the business if they think it's so bad. Democracy is an involuntary solution, a voluntary solution would demonstrate that it's the unanimous will of the people.

Quote:
At the most general level, using the democratic method to make a decision rather than the market makes sense when a community wishes to collectively do something.

A community must then not involuntarily include individuals who do not want to be included in the community. They can be a collective, but they must be a voluntary collective, not determined by arbitrary criteria such as geography.

qbg wrote:
Obviously both sides of the transaction would gain or else it would not take place; however, that does not mean that the gain will not be equal.

Because the gain is subjective it cannot be measured, because it cannot be measured it cannot be compared. To say that one gains more than the other is asserting to know what you cannot know. To say that they gain can be said by the virtue of it's voluntarily taking place, but to evaluate the degree is impossible.


chaospump
chaospump's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Here's a question for you

Here's a question for you atheist libertarians and anarchists...

Without government, how will you protect yourself from from organized religious groups?

If the Christians in your area, who outnumber you vastly, and think you are basically evil anyway, should decide to take everything you've got and give it to some member of god's elect who deserves it more than you, and maybe burn you at the stake while they're at it, what's to stop them?

All of the faith and prayer in the world

All of your dumb show and circuses

You know it's a lie, it'll always be a lie

The invention of an animal who knows he's going to die

-Randy Newman


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote: Here's a

chaospump wrote:

Here's a question for you atheist libertarians and anarchists...

Without government, how will you protect yourself from from organized religious groups?

If the Christians in your area, who outnumber you vastly, and think you are basically evil anyway, should decide to take everything you've got and give it to some member of god's elect who deserves it more than you, and maybe burn you at the stake while they're at it, what's to stop them?

Just lie to them. What, is Darwin going to sentence you to eternal damnation in the afterlife for committing the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of atheism? Seriously.

 Plus, machineguns are effective deterrents.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Because the gain is

Quote:
Because the gain is subjective it cannot be measured, because it cannot be measured it cannot be compared. To say that one gains more than the other is asserting to know what you cannot know. To say that they gain can be said by the virtue of it's voluntarily taking place, but to evaluate the degree is impossible.

Depends.

 Rent, can be for example, an example of an unequal relation between two entities on a market.   In this case, the owner of the property is above the person who being rented to.  In this case, the difference between the rent and what the property was producing for the owner before being rented out is the inequality in the trade.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Depends. Rent,

qbg wrote:

Depends.

Rent, can be for example, an example of an unequal relation between two entities on a market. In this case, the owner of the property is above the person who being rented to. In this case, the difference between the rent and what the property was producing for the owner before being rented out is the inequality in the trade.

This is different. In the first case, you are comparing two parties in an exchange, in this case, you're comparing a renting vs nonrenting from the perspective of the renter. If you compare two parties in an exchange as you did before, then it's a comparison of the gain of the renter against the gain of the rentee. Which is a comparison I believe cannot be made.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote: Here's a

chaospump wrote:

Here's a question for you atheist libertarians and anarchists...

Without government, how will you protect yourself from from organized religious groups?

If the Christians in your area, who outnumber you vastly, and think you are basically evil anyway, should decide to take everything you've got and give it to some member of god's elect who deserves it more than you, and maybe burn you at the stake while they're at it, what's to stop them?

Simple, you just go on a genocidal spree.  It's pretty much what is happening in Iraq now and for some reason Libertarians aren't jumping to build summer homes there.

Another good question to ask is how is someone supposed to sue in a court system when the courts is a branch of the government but there is no government.  Even if you are successful how does one enforce a decision with no police or jail system?

The system is absurd in theory and in practice.  As you have pointed out we'd be on the receiving end of a fundy cultural revolution. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: How is the

Vessel wrote:

How is the statement that with libertarianism the buisnesses would not simply take the place of government, only much more restrictive of people's freedoms, not a naked assertion? I have seen no proof offered for this.

There is a comment above where someone mentions that with libertarianism one could buy the environment and sue people for damages. Doesn't it also stand to reason then that one could buy the environment and decide it was their private property? Doesn't that seem like something that would be bad for society?

This is an unfounded charge. In a free market system, companies and individuals would be no less accountable than thery are now. If I proffer a product that injures the consumer and have dishonestly misrepresented the risks of the product I offer, you would have legal recourse to claim damages.  Similarly, if I shit in the water and it makes the people downstream ill, they would have the right to seek redress. I'm sick of the notion that a libertine society would be pure anarchy.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed

D-cubed wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Holy unfounded, unsupported naked assertions Batman!

When you have something constructive to bring to the conversation, be sure to let us all know!

That's pretty much the typical response I get from Libertarians. When you guys actually present something plausible perhaps you'll get more than 1% of the vote in an election. Actually you guys do pretty well for dog catcher but your own ideology would demand that he quit his job.

 

Do you honestly think the reason thrid parties are marginalized is simply because their ideas are unworkable? This is a gigantic nonsequitor and pays no heed at all to the actual political climate in this nation. What you just said is akin to saying that the arguments atheists make should be weighed against the 80% of the country who are theists - by majority weight.

You've also done nothing to answer the charge levied - that your objections to this school of thought are NOT well formulated, concrete or based upon actual evidence.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: I said

dassercha wrote:

I said people should be held responsible for their own actions, not that they would take responsibility for them.

Ok. Agreed.

So, how do we get generation after generation of people to stop making the same similar mistakes? On a macro-level, wouldn't we all be better off by coming up with solutions that would benefit said people? Would not this be a vested interest for all of us?

 

 

Now this is an excellent question!  It's also a tough question to answer.

What is required first and foremost in my mind is a true global market. I think it is trade, more than anything else, that equalizes people and brings them closer together. In that regard, we need to keep working toward this end. We need to stop punishing third world nations by taxing and tariffing their goods and trying to pass legislation that works to keep them down. I understand the environmental reasoning behind initiatives like the Kyoto protocal, but what is usually never considered is that the nations pushing this protocal have slashed and burned and polluted to no end to get where they are. Now they have the gall to up and coming nations that they have no right to do the same. We either need to allow developing nations autonomy to build economic clout in their own way, we have to be willing to fund their development in its entirety. No option in between is fair. Are you willing to pay to industrialize Cambodia, Ethiopia, or Niger? 

 We need to understand that while high end labor being outsourced in the short term will ultimately benefit us all in the long term. The entire reason jobs are outsourced in the first place is because an equally qualified person is wllling to do the job for less money. This is typically because the standard of living in the country the job is outsourced to is lower than the country the job came from. By outsourcing these jobs we effectively raise the standard of living in said county. At some point we will essentially have a global economy, where wages are not dictated by geography, but by merit and skill level. 

Ultimately, I feel this is the only fair way to conduct business, and I also think that this sort of free market works to break down socio-political borders and works to increase the standard of living of the world as a whole. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
chaospump wrote:

chaospump wrote:

Here's a question for you atheist libertarians and anarchists...

Without government, how will you protect yourself from from organized religious groups?

 

How do you protect yourself now?

There's you answer.

It always baffles me that people present some problem that a libertine system supposedly could not handle when the current systems we employ fail so utterly in the same regard.

People constantly whine about the abuse of monopolies for example. What, exactly, prevents monopolies in our current system? For fucks sake, in many cases our government SUPPORTS monopolies - you need only look at the cash they shovel at the airline industry. I don't see it, and I don't see such restriction as necessary.

Let me ask this, why DIDN'T our current system prevent the abuses via twats like Ken Lay? How can you honestly whine on and on about potentials for abuse in libertine systems when the systems we currently employ fuck us all left and right already?

I've NEVER claimed a libertine system would eliminate the criminals or the bad elements we ALREADY deal with - we will NEVER get rid of that element of our society. I'm saying that at a similar level of corruption we could have a hell of a lot more freedom.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
This is an unfounded charge. In a free market system, companies and individuals would be no less accountable than thery are now. If I proffer a product that injures the consumer and have dishonestly misrepresented the risks of the product I offer, you would have legal recourse to claim damages. Similarly, if I shit in the water and it makes the people downstream ill, they would have the right to seek redress. I'm sick of the notion that a libertine society would be pure anarchy.

Well, the other libertarian with whom I've been conversing in this very thread, was promoting Anarchy and even stated as much. Anarchy is one of the branches of libertariranism, is it not? So, exactly what branch of libertarianism are you sugesting? Are these courts you mention, in which people have legal recourse, within the jurisdiction of a centralized government body? Who's to say who shit in the water, or more realisticly, who shit in the air? 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

How do you protect yourself now?

There's you answer.

It always baffles me that people present some problem that a libertine system supposedly could not handle when the current systems we employ fail so utterly in the same regard.

People constantly whine about the abuse of monopolies for example. What, exactly, prevents monopolies in our current system? For fucks sake, in many cases our government SUPPORTS monopolies - you need only look at the cash they shovel at the airline industry. I don't see it, and I don't see such restriction as necessary.

Let me ask this, why DIDN'T our current system prevent the abuses via twats like Ken Lay? How can you honestly whine on and on about potentials for abuse in libertine systems when the systems we currently employ fuck us all left and right already?

I've NEVER claimed a libertine system would eliminate the criminals or the bad elements we ALREADY deal with - we will NEVER get rid of that element of our society. I'm saying that at a similar level of corruption we could have a hell of a lot more freedom.

You do nothing but claim with no supporting points that with a libertine system we would have the same corruption with more freedom. Of course, you added a lot of "whines", "baffled"s and capitalized words as if those somehow make your assumpotions true, but it seems with the experience you have debating idiots who use these same tactics, you would know that such is not the case.

So far you and Zhwazi (who strikes me as the type that is very likely sittting in his underground bunker right now waiting foir the "Feds" to break down his door) have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system. No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system). I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom. I believe that by our nature as social animals humans require some type of government to regulate the society . We seem to need alpha-humans. I am more concerned about those like children) who could easily have no human rights than about those average full grown healthy middle class adults who already have more power than they need.  

How are you supposed to get people to support a change in the system of government which would necessarilly be extremely difficult for each and every member of the country by simply saying, "Well, dude. Shit sucks right now. Might be better, you know?" You have to be able to address people's concerns if you want them to take you seriously.

How do the poor afford to educate their children without public schools? How are abused or unwanted children taken care of without a welfare system? What incentive does the single armed man offer the impoverished individual to stay within the rules of a society? What power does the individual have against the stronger individual or the collective?

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
This is an unfounded charge. In a free market system, companies and individuals would be no less accountable than thery are now. If I proffer a product that injures the consumer and have dishonestly misrepresented the risks of the product I offer, you would have legal recourse to claim damages. Similarly, if I shit in the water and it makes the people downstream ill, they would have the right to seek redress. I'm sick of the notion that a libertine society would be pure anarchy.

Well, the other libertarian with whom I've been conversing in this very thread, was promoting Anarchy and even stated as much.

He's actually an anachro-capitalist. We agree on quite a few things, but neither of us represent a libertarian ideologue. Neither of us speak for one another or the school of thought. You should be well aware of such distinctions as an atheist.

 

Quote:
Anarchy is one of the branches of libertariranism, is it not?

No, what ever gave you that idea?

Quote:
So, exactly what branch of libertarianism are you sugesting? Are these courts you mention, in which people have legal recourse, within the jurisdiction of a centralized government body? Who's to say who shit in the water, or more realisticly, who shit in the air? 

I've been over this extensively in other threads. Essentially, I think pretty much everything out to be privitized other than the courts - which would be supported by transgressors.

I feel the government has no place in business other than adjudication and contract resolution. We honestly don't require any more government intrution than this. If somebody poisons you, you clearly have the right to redress.

I represent noboby other than myself in proffering this opinion.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

How do you protect yourself now?

There's you answer.

It always baffles me that people present some problem that a libertine system supposedly could not handle when the current systems we employ fail so utterly in the same regard.

People constantly whine about the abuse of monopolies for example. What, exactly, prevents monopolies in our current system? For fucks sake, in many cases our government SUPPORTS monopolies - you need only look at the cash they shovel at the airline industry. I don't see it, and I don't see such restriction as necessary.

Let me ask this, why DIDN'T our current system prevent the abuses via twats like Ken Lay? How can you honestly whine on and on about potentials for abuse in libertine systems when the systems we currently employ fuck us all left and right already?

I've NEVER claimed a libertine system would eliminate the criminals or the bad elements we ALREADY deal with - we will NEVER get rid of that element of our society. I'm saying that at a similar level of corruption we could have a hell of a lot more freedom.

You do nothing but claim with no supporting points that with a libertine system we would have the same corruption with more freedom.

 Not quite. I simply point out that the problems people like to pin on libertine systems are already existant. I have NEVER claimed to offer a utopia, I've merely proffered a system I feel offers greater financial and social freedom at no greater costs. I've told you why I feel this is so.

 

Quote:
Of course, you added a lot of "whines", "baffled"s and capitalized words as if those somehow make your assumpotions true, but it seems with the experience you have debating idiots who use these same tactics, you would know that such is not the case.

I've never claimed that my opinion was Gospel. It does however make logical sense to me, and I'm certainly no mental slouch. If we are talking about a libertine system, we MUST speak in opinion and hypotheticals, as we have no technical frame of reference.

Quote:
So far you and Zhwazi (who strikes me as the type that is very likely sittting in his underground bunker right now waiting foir the "Feds" to break down his door) have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system. No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system). I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

There's where we differ then, I suppose. 

 

Quote:
I believe that by our nature as social animals humans require some type of government to regulate the society .

And I believe such a statement damns us as a species. I believe it kills everything human about us. 

 

Quote:
We seem to need alpha-humans. I am more concerned about those like children) who could easily have no human rights than about those average full grown healthy middle class adults who already have more power than they need.  

No, you seem to require capitulation and hierarchy.

Quote:
How are you supposed to get people to support a change in the system of government which would necessarilly be extremely difficult for each and every member of the country by simply saying, "Well, dude. Shit sucks right now. Might be better, you know?" You have to be able to address people's concerns if you want them to take you seriously.

The same way I entreat them to reconsider their most cherished beliefs. You do realize who you're talking too, right?

Quote:
How do the poor afford to educate their children without public schools?

They do so without public schools. you pay for your own education or seek apprenticeship. I'm a firm believer that at LEAST 50% of people who go to school for worthless and make job degrees like "Communications" would be much better off learning a trade that is actually useful and employable. This is the system most of the world employs.

 

Quote:
How are abused or unwanted children taken care of without a welfare system?

They aren't taken care of now. Charity should suffice at least as well as the broken system we have now.

Quote:
What incentive does the single armed man offer the impoverished individual to stay within the rules of a society? What power does the individual have against the stronger individual or the collective?

What incentive and power do they have now? I'm proffering a system based solely on merit and initiative and drive.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Quote:
Anarchy is one of the branches of libertariranism, is it not?
No, what ever gave you that idea?

Well, anarchist communism and  anarcho-syndicalism are part of libertarian socialism.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Do you honestly think the reason thrid parties are marginalized is simply because their ideas are unworkable? This is a gigantic nonsequitor and pays no heed at all to the actual political climate in this nation. What you just said is akin to saying that the arguments atheists make should be weighed against the 80% of the country who are theists.

You've also done nothing to answer the charge levied - that your objections to this school of thought are NOT well formulated, concrete or based upon actual evidence.

All you have said is that my comments are unsupported although I presented plenty of historical evidence.  Then your brilliant school of thought merely told me to shut the fuck up and responded with insults which I typically get.  So you ask me to respond to your comment which was nothing more than something to start a flame war.  No there is no "school of thought" being presented here.  Just some people who want to milk off the work of others and whine about paying taxes.

I can go on and on about how Libertarians really never thought anything through and just get no responses from anyone.  How is there supposed to be competition in sewer lines.  Should I not like one system then just have someone come by and hook up another sewer line?  Is there a free market on radio waves with a limited spectrum?  How can civil liberties be protected with no government and the warlord with the largest armies dictate the rules.

Let's see where the greatest forms of Libertarian government have been implemented.  Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.  Lovely countries with constant warfare resulting in the most powerful and organized to form brutal regimes.  Libertarianism is nothing more than a plutocracy and those impelled with wishful thinking think if they relinquish their freedoms they'll get their piece of the pie.

It's claimed that without government we can argue our greviences before a court of law.  Of course there are no courts with no government since the courts are a branch of the government.  The plutocracy can set up a court system like in feudal Europe but there will be no chance in actually suing the leaders except for show.  Since the police is owned by the wealthy your best chance if somehow you'd win a court trial is to develop a larger army to force payment.

Then there's the environmental issue.  You guys magically think that pollution is polite and stays where it's ordered to.  I mentioned a couple of examples but you insist that my position is unsupported while you have your magical Libertarian wishful thinking.

So arguing with a Libertarian is like arguing with a creationist.  No matter what I argue or what examples I present you'll just deny it and present nothing in return other than "it just will be perfect".  So don't mind me while I laugh at your pseudointellectual efforts to portray a flawed governmental system as anything other than a temper tantrum presented by a bunch of guys who don't want to pay their taxes but happily enjoy the society that those taxes have presented. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed

D-cubed wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Do you honestly think the reason thrid parties are marginalized is simply because their ideas are unworkable? This is a gigantic nonsequitor and pays no heed at all to the actual political climate in this nation. What you just said is akin to saying that the arguments atheists make should be weighed against the 80% of the country who are theists.

You've also done nothing to answer the charge levied - that your objections to this school of thought are NOT well formulated, concrete or based upon actual evidence.

All you have said is that my comments are unsupported although I presented plenty of historical evidence.  Then your brilliant school of thought merely told me to shut the fuck up and responded with insults which I typically get.

And you you failed to answer my actual question. I compared what the RRS is doing with theism with libertine political campaigns. I made the point that standing up for principle and fighting for what you believe is right is the only way to go about changing the world.

You ignored this point and cited the status quo.

So I ask you agian, is what the RRS is trying to do in regard to changing hearts and minds on religious issues akin to my lame hope of getting people to embrace liberatianism? Seems the odds and history are stacked against us in both cases.

I wonder how things ever change.

Do me a favor and actually answer the question this time. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

And you you failed to answer my actual question. I compared what the RRS is doing with theism with libertine political campaigns. I made the point that standing up for principle and fighting for what you believe is right is the only way to go about changing the world.

You ignored this point and cited the status quo.

So I ask you agian, is what the RRS is trying to do in regard to changing hearts and minds on religious issues akin to my lame hope of getting people to embrace liberatianism? Seems the odds and history are stacked against us in both cases.

I wonder how things ever change.

Do me a favor and actually answer the question this time.

Funny, you had no problem ignoring all my other posts. Belief in a god is not a system of government. If you wanted to compare the two you'd compare Libertariasm to Theocracy or Atheism and Christianity.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vessel wrote:
You do nothing but claim with no supporting points that with a libertine system we would have the same corruption with more freedom.

 Not quite. I simply point out that the problems people like to pin on libertine systems are already existant. I have NEVER claimed to offer a utopia, I've merely proffered a system I feel offers greater financial and social freedom at no greater costs. I've told you why I feel this is so.

Existent, yes. Rampant, no. The extent of these problems is what I believe to be the major concern of people who oppose, or seriously question the practicallity of, a libertine system. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Of course, you added a lot of "whines", "baffled"s and capitalized words as if those somehow make your assumpotions true, but it seems with the experience you have debating idiots who use these same tactics, you would know that such is not the case.

I've never claimed that my opinion was Gospel. It does however make logical sense to me, and I'm certainly no mental slouch. If we are talking about a libertine system, we MUST speak in opinion and hypotheticals, as we have no technical frame of reference.

I do not know you well enough to judge your mental slouchiness factor with any reliability. You seem, so far, to be an intelligent enough guy. There are also many intelligent people who it does not make sense to. Does this fact truly 'baffle' you and do you really think there disagreement is 'whining'? Anyway, this is a pointless part of the discussion as it neither speaks to or against the merits of Libertine ideology.  

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

There's where we differ then, I suppose.

Yes. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I believe that by our nature as social animals humans require some type of government to regulate the society .

And I believe such a statement damns us as a species. I believe it kills everything human about us.

If it is our nature, it can not kill everything that is human about us. This sounds a lot like a comment I would expect from a theist.  You are placing humans on a non-existent pedestal. We can travel into space and a chimp can jump from tree to tree. Neither of us has done something the other can not. We've both simply moved from one place to another. There is nothing about humans that says we can function in a manner antithetic to the natural manner we witness in other animals. What exactly is this 'humaness' to which you refer?

Quote:
No, you seem to require capitulation and hierarchy.

I see no reason to believe otherwise. I'm not the type that is prone to believe otherwise without reason. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
How are you supposed to get people to support a change in the system of government which would necessarilly be extremely difficult for each and every member of the country by simply saying, "Well, dude. Shit sucks right now. Might be better, you know?" You have to be able to address people's concerns if you want them to take you seriously.

The same way I entreat them to reconsider their most cherished beliefs. You do realize who you're talking too, right?

One of the core members of an internet site and radio show which I think has noble goals. Point?  

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
How do the poor afford to educate their children without public schools?

They do so without public schools. you pay for your own education or seek apprenticeship. I'm a firm believer that at LEAST 50% of people who go to school for worthless and make job degrees like "Communications" would be much better off learning a trade that is actually useful and employable. This is the system most of the world employs.

What countries have no public eductaion system for children ages 5-17 (or thereabouts)?

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]How are abused or unwanted children taken care of without a welfare system?

They aren't taken care of now. Charity should suffice at least as well as the broken system we have now.

Sure they are taken care of now. It is, by far, not a perfect system, but it is an outright lie to say they are not taken care of. And you have absolutely no good reason to think charity should suffice at any level nearly comparable to the system we have no. That is one big unsupported and unevidenced assertion.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]What incentive does the single armed man offer the impoverished individual to stay within the rules of a society? What power does the individual have against the stronger individual or the collective?

What incentive and power do they have now? I'm proffering a system based solely on merit and initiative and drive.

Which is in reality a survival of the fittest system in which the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. I see nothing to lead a rational man to believe this system would do anything other than allow the strongest to force their will on the weakest. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: So far you

Vessel wrote:

So far you and Zhwazi (who strikes me as the type that is very likely sittting in his underground bunker right now waiting foir the "Feds" to break down his door)

They'll have to find the door first. =D

Quote:
have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system.

What's unappealing about not being told what to do all the time? Darwin forbid you might have to think for yourself? 

Quote:
No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system).

Well there's the IRS, ATF, DEA, FCC, TSA, should I keep listing agencies? I consider someone stealing a third of my income to be intruding on my freedoms, whether they're an IRS agent or a mugger I don't care, theft is wrong whether legal or not.

Quote:
I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

How do you know what the needs of society are? You can't without letting each individual decide what their own individual needs are, because society is nothing but the sum of it's parts, the individuals. They must have complete and unfettered personal freedom in order to decide, and ony then can you know what needs of society are in the first place. 

 

qbg wrote:
Well, anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism are part of libertarian socialism.

Market libertarians tend to consider libertarian socialism to be a contradiction in terms, even though the word libertarian is original with socialists.


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

How do you protect yourself now?

There's you answer.

It always baffles me that people present some problem that a libertine system supposedly could not handle when the current systems we employ fail so utterly in the same regard.

People constantly whine about the abuse of monopolies for example. What, exactly, prevents monopolies in our current system? For fucks sake, in many cases our government SUPPORTS monopolies - you need only look at the cash they shovel at the airline industry. I don't see it, and I don't see such restriction as necessary.

Let me ask this, why DIDN'T our current system prevent the abuses via twats like Ken Lay? How can you honestly whine on and on about potentials for abuse in libertine systems when the systems we currently employ fuck us all left and right already?

I've NEVER claimed a libertine system would eliminate the criminals or the bad elements we ALREADY deal with - we will NEVER get rid of that element of our society. I'm saying that at a similar level of corruption we could have a hell of a lot more freedom.

You do nothing but claim with no supporting points that with a libertine system we would have the same corruption with more freedom. Of course, you added a lot of "whines", "baffled"s and capitalized words as if those somehow make your assumpotions true, but it seems with the experience you have debating idiots who use these same tactics, you would know that such is not the case.

So far you and Zhwazi (who strikes me as the type that is very likely sittting in his underground bunker right now waiting foir the "Feds" to break down his door) have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system. No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system). I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom. I believe that by our nature as social animals humans require some type of government to regulate the society . We seem to need alpha-humans. I am more concerned about those like children) who could easily have no human rights than about those average full grown healthy middle class adults who already have more power than they need.

How are you supposed to get people to support a change in the system of government which would necessarilly be extremely difficult for each and every member of the country by simply saying, "Well, dude. Shit sucks right now. Might be better, you know?" You have to be able to address people's concerns if you want them to take you seriously.

How do the poor afford to educate their children without public schools? How are abused or unwanted children taken care of without a welfare system? What incentive does the single armed man offer the impoverished individual to stay within the rules of a society? What power does the individual have against the stronger individual or the collective?

 

You can't speak for a system solely because you are doing well in it by yourself.

"Nothing has happened to me yet, so it must be working" is not a correct analysis of systems such as welfare or any other State-administered programs.

The above indicates that you care a lot for yourself. But you proceed to contradict yourself when you say that the needs of the society supercede the individual. The collective does not supercede the individual. The collective is made of individuals. If you take away the collective, you are left with individuals. If you take away the individuals, you are left with no collective.

You can't possibly know what is better for everyone else, simply because you suppose it would work for you.

We don't need public schooling. Public schooling is a failure in its own. Literacy and graduation rates are always very low, due to the school not being subject to any competition. Education is a service, not a requirement. Competition always benefits the consumer.

Public schools do not even help poor children and their parents, it rather creates an incentive to make them stay poor, since the nanny-state wishes to provide education at gunpoint. In result, you don't endup getting anything, because you didn't pay anything, except your taxes. That's how public schools get their money in the first place, by a coercive process called "taxation." Stealing form A to satisfy B. Again, satisfying B by giving B stolen money makes B not want to work for money.

The welfare system also does not help abused and unwanted children. Let's say that an abusive parent who doesn't want his/her child goes on welfare. How does this help the child? The child can't do anything. Giving money to bad parents through coercive funding just makes the parent not want to work, and continue doing what they are doing. Welfare is also a massive failure on its own. Welfare is inherently designed to become a way of life, not help the poor, unwanted, and abused.

The individual can have considerable power over the collective, BECAUSE THE COLLECTIVE IS MADE OF INDIVIDUALS. Just because a group of individuals do not want to refer to themselves as a collective, doesn't mean they can't form a collective voluntarily. Look at the War on Terror. We are fighting an insurgency, one that consists of individuals with guns, who don't like us, who formed voluntarily. Yet we still haven't managed to "win" (whatever "winning" is defined as). Just because a society is measured by individuals, doesn't mean that a voluntary collective can't be formed.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: They'll have

Zhwazi wrote:
They'll have to find the door first. =D

Lol. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system.

What's unappealing about not being told what to do all the time? Darwin forbid you might have to think for yourself?

Well, being as that I'm not told what to do all the time and I do think for myself, I fail to grasp your point. 

Why do you invoke Darwin? I fail to see his relevance.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system).

Well there's the IRS, ATF, DEA, FCC, TSA, should I keep listing agencies? I consider someone stealing a third of my income to be intruding on my freedoms, whether they're an IRS agent or a mugger I don't care, theft is wrong whether legal or not.

I like these agencies and do not mind paying taxes to help support the government I enjoy the benefits of. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

How do you know what the needs of society are? You can't without letting each individual decide what their own individual needs are, because society is nothing but the sum of it's parts, the individuals. They must have complete and unfettered personal freedom in order to decide, and ony then can you know what needs of society are in the first place.

A society is an entity unto itself. We do not reduce a society to the individual to find the needs of a society. It is obvious that many individuals hold desires that are detrimental to a society as a whole, so any claim that we find the needs of a society at the individual level is evidently incorrect.


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Zhwazi

Vessel wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:
They'll have to find the door first. =D

Lol.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
have done nothing to make a libertine system sound at all appealing for those of us who are doing fairly well in the present system.

What's unappealing about not being told what to do all the time? Darwin forbid you might have to think for yourself?

Well, being as that I'm not told what to do all the time and I do think for myself, I fail to grasp your point.

Why do you invoke Darwin? I fail to see his relevance.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]No one is intruding on any of the freedoms I consider important (aside from the religious and I will try to change that in whatever ways possible within the current system).

Well there's the IRS, ATF, DEA, FCC, TSA, should I keep listing agencies? I consider someone stealing a third of my income to be intruding on my freedoms, whether they're an IRS agent or a mugger I don't care, theft is wrong whether legal or not.

I like these agencies and do not mind paying taxes to help support the government I enjoy the benefits of.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

How do you know what the needs of society are? You can't without letting each individual decide what their own individual needs are, because society is nothing but the sum of it's parts, the individuals. They must have complete and unfettered personal freedom in order to decide, and ony then can you know what needs of society are in the first place.

A society is an entity unto itself. We do not reduce a society to the individual to find the needs of a society. It is obvious that many individuals hold desires that are detrimental to a society as a whole, so any claim that we find the needs of a society at the individual level is evidently incorrect.


 You enjoy the benfits of what, the forceful deprivation of your property?  The constant measures of "security" to ensure your safety?  Just because nothing has happened to you, doesn't mean you can know what can work in order for nothing to happen to everyone else.  Once again, the "I like the government, the government helps to protect me, therefore I like big government" is not a valid assessment.

A society is not an entity unto itself.  You can't put 20 people in a room and call them one entity.  A society is made of individuals.  This is the equivilant of saying 2+2=5.  A sum can not be separable to its parts.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: You can't

Kalnik wrote:
You can't speak for a system solely because you are doing well in it by yourself.

Well, I certainly could, but I'm not. 

Kanlnik wrote:
"Nothing has happened to me yet, so it must be working" is not a correct analysis of systems such as welfare or any other State-administered programs.

Don't use quotes unless  you are quoting. To use quotes when paraphrasing is dishonest. No big deal, just pointing it out.

No argument with this statement. I never claimed it was. 

Quote:
The above indicates that you care a lot for yourself.

Of course. I would hazard to guess that everybody cares a lot about themself. 

Quote:
But you proceed to contradict yourself when you say that the needs of the society supercede the individual.

No contradiction at all. I can care about myself and still feel the needs of the society supercede the needs of the individual. Howis this contradictory? In truth we aren't actually talking about the needs of the individual here but the desires of the individual. Individual needs are fairly basic and one of them is, apparently, to be part of a society.  

Quote:
The collective does not supercede the individual.

Yes the society does supercede the individual.. 

Quote:
The collective is made of individuals. If you take away the collective, you are left with individuals. If you take away the individuals, you are left with no collective.

That does not support that the collective itself can not have needs that supercede the individual. You have just shown that collectives are formed of individuals but you have shown nothing as to needs. 

Quote:
You can't possibly know what is better for everyone else, simply because you suppose it would work for you.

No, but the society can show us what is best for the society. If the society functions better in one form than in another ,then that is the best form of the society regardless of what the individual feels about the matter. 

Quote:
We don't need public schooling. Public schooling is a failure in its own. Literacy and graduation rates are always very low, due to the school not being subject to any competition. Education is a service, not a requirement. Competition always benefits the consumer.

 Public schools do not even help poor children and their parents, it rather creates an incentive to make them stay poor, since the nanny-state wishes to provide education at gunpoint. In result, you don't endup getting anything, because you didn't pay anything, except your taxes. That's how public schools get their money in the first place, by a coercive process called "taxation." Stealing form A to satisfy B. Again, satisfying B by giving B stolen money makes B not want to work for money.

You have said nothing of sunbstance in the above two paragraphs. It is all unsupported assertions. There are indeed poor children who rise above the poverty level due to their education in public schools. If these children had to pay for private schooling it would seem obvious that they would receive no education and would be condemned to stay poor. The part where you start talking about nanny-state, education at gunpoint and pay nothing get nothing doesn't even really make any point whatsoever. Poor kids have access to an education. That would seem to not be true within your proposed libertine system. That is the point.

Quote:
The welfare system also does not help abused and unwanted children. Let's say that an abusive parent who doesn't want his/her child goes on welfare. How does this help the child? The child can't do anything. Giving money to bad parents through coercive funding just makes the parent not want to work, and continue doing what they are doing. Welfare is also a massive failure on its own. Welfare is inherently designed to become a way of life, not help the poor, unwanted, and abused.

We were speaking of the child welfare system. The system by which children are removed from parents who torture them mentally and physically.

The welfare system needs reformed. No argument there. 

Quote:
The individual can have considerable power over the collective, BECAUSE THE COLLECTIVE IS MADE OF INDIVIDUALS. Just because a group of individuals do not want to refer to themselves as a collective, doesn't mean they can't form a collective voluntarily. Look at the War on Terror. We are fighting an insurgency, one that consists of individuals with guns, who don't like us, who formed voluntarily. Yet we still haven't managed to "win" (whatever "winning" is defined as). Just because a society is measured by individuals, doesn't mean that a voluntary collective can't be formed.

Again you say nothing of substance. Any collective formed can easily impose its will on the individual. So your whole desire for unfettered personal freedom is immediately rendered moot once any collective forms. Any individuals who desire toform a collective as their personal free choice can then impose their will on any individual who chooses not to form a collective. 

The insurgency in Iraq isn't something I would bring up as a analogy. I certainly have no desire to live in such circumstances and it is definitely not a stable society. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Well, being

Vessel wrote:

Well, being as that I'm not told what to do all the time and I do think for myself, I fail to grasp your point.

File a tax return. Get a driver's license. Register for the draft. Ever tried to open a business? Get X Y Z and W permits. Collect taxes from your customers and employees. Pay this, that, and the other. Go die for your country if we have a draft. Pay your taxes in lump sums, but don't pay your credit cards off more than $5000 at a time.

Quote:
Why do you invoke Darwin? I fail to see his relevance.

I replace "god" with "darwin" when dealing on atheist forums for comedic purposes. 

 

Quote:
I like these agencies and do not mind paying taxes to help support the government I enjoy the benefits of.

Enjoy your delusions in peace and don't force me to suffer through them and we're cool. But that doesn't happen. 

Vessel wrote:
A society is an entity unto itself. We do not reduce a society to the individual to find the needs of a society. It is obvious that many individuals hold desires that are detrimental to a society as a whole, so any claim that we find the needs of a society at the individual level is evidently incorrect.

You didn't answer my question of how you know what is best for a society, and what you offered instead can be easily rebutted with the simple logic that Kalnik offered in his 2+2=5 analogy.

A thing is the sum of it's parts. A society consists of parts called individuals. Society is nothing more than these individuals. If you were to take away the "society" you are left with individuals. If you take away the individuals, you have no more society. Society is individuals and nothing more.

The good of society is the good of the individuals which make up that society. There is no seperate good of society. Society is inseperable from the individuals that make it up.


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
You keep acting as if a

You keep acting as if a completely fictitious entity has interests which are greater than the individuals.

Every individual has needs and interests. Each individual's needs and interests is different from another individual's needs and interests.

A society can not exist without individuals. You take away individuals, you have no society. You take away a society, you still have individuals. Once again, a thing can not be separable to the sum of its parts. 2+2 does not equal 5.

Society is a collective entity. It does not exist independently from what makes up the collective. As I said before, you take away the collective, you are still left with individuals (You take away organization X, you are still left with people from organization X, since organization X does not define the people that make up organization X). You take away individuals, you are left without a collective (You take away the people that make up organization X, you are left with no organization X).

And yes, taxation is an inherently flawed idea. The idea that stealing money from A to give to B is wrong. This does not change the fact that it is wrong just because the government does it. It makes no difference. Just because a group of people call themselves a "government" does not mean that they are not subject to the same rights and wrongs as everyone else.

The term "society" or "collective" does not define the needs of anyone. Human knowledge is imperfect, you can't say that you know what is best for all other humans with imperfect knowledge.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:


Quote:
Vessel wrote:
A society is an entity unto itself. We do not reduce a society to the individual to find the needs of a society. It is obvious that many individuals hold desires that are detrimental to a society as a whole, so any claim that we find the needs of a society at the individual level is evidently incorrect.

You didn't answer my question of how you know what is best for a society, and what you offered instead can be easily rebutted with the simple logic that Kalnik offered in his 2+2=5 analogy.

A thing is the sum of it's parts. A society consists of parts called individuals. Society is nothing more than these individuals. If you were to take away the "society" you are left with individuals. If you take away the individuals, you have no more society. Society is individuals and nothing more.

The good of society is the good of the individuals which make up that society. There is no seperate good of society. Society is inseperable from the individuals that make it up.

You are wrong. The society is not only the sum of individuals but is also the natural laws that exist alongside and within these individuals. Your example is flawed because you can not take the society away from an animal that is, by its nature, a social animal. You can not remove the society and be left with individuals. The society is still a natural part of each and every individual. Even our families are miniature societies and they are necessary to existence as without the coupling there is no individual. I would go as far as to propose we have no basis within our human psychology to truly consider the needs or desires of the individual.

If everyone in a society has their own personal freedom (which you see to think is best for the individual) to do exactly as they wish but mortality and poverty rates (some of the ways we measure the health of a society) increase then obviously you're statement that what is best for the individual is necessarily best for the society is incorrect. How could this be explained if the needs of the society was simply the sum of the needs (desires) of the individuals?

*EDIT* A better way to say what I am trying to say is that the society isn't just comprised of individuals but also of the way actions by those individual affect other individuals. We can not seperate an individual living around other individuals from the society  and truly consider him an individual. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: You are

Vessel wrote:

You are wrong. The society is not only the sum of individuals but is also the natural laws that exist alongside and within these individuals.

Is there evidence of these natural laws? 

Quote:
Your example is flawed because you can not take the society away from an animal that is, by its nature, a social animal.

You are using a very different definition of society. I use society to mean a set containing people. An arbitrary set at that. Arbitrarily defined by geography. You're confusing this concept with other things. 

 

Quote:
You can not remove the society and be left with individuals.

By removing from your mind the arbitrary set which groups those inviduals into a "society", yes, you can. Societies themselves are fictive, only the individuals that make them up are real. A set which has no members is nothing.

Quote:
The society is still a natural part of each and every individual. Even our families are miniature societies and they are necessary to existence as without the coupling there is no individual.

So if there is only one individual on earth, then there really isn't, because there's nothing to couple with?

Quote:
I would go as far as to propose we have no basis within our human psychology to truly consider the needs or desires of the individual.

Then your needs and desires and your opinion of what the needs and desires of the collective are are entirely irrelevant and should be completely disreguarded. 

Quote:
If everyone in a society has their own personal freedom (which you see to think is best for the individual) to do exactly as they wish but mortality and poverty rates (some of the ways we measure the health of a society) increase then obviously you're statement that what is best for the individual is necessarily best for the society is incorrect.

First of all, your standard of measuring the health of a society are arbitrary. Second, they have the freedom to improve their condition in life as they see fit, and they'll work towards that because they are permitted to. Third, poverty and mortality are not results of freedom. 

Quote:
How could this be explained if the needs of the society was simply the sum of the needs (desires) of the individuals?

Explaining why your hypothetical world where people are free but poverty and mortality are high is impossible because you didn't give me any circumstances about why poverty and mortality are high in the first place. It's irrational to simply assume freedom made it happen as there are many more factors which contribute.

 If it is your belief that this has empirical evidence in pre-regulation industry (my assumption), then you make a post hoc propter hoc fallacy in assuming that unregulated industry is the reason for this. Poverty and mortality fall as technological progress is made, irrelevant of regulation. What we have today is not the benefits of regulation but the benefits of industry, it is not government but the market that has made our lives better.

Once people were actually free, the good of society would be revealed by the actions people choose. They will choose what is best for them. Allowing everyone to choose what is best for themselves and not aggressive against other individuals will allow them to decide and act on their own ideas of an improvement in conditions, and if everyone does this, it is likely that everyone will experience an improvement in conditions. They will act in such a way as to cure their poverty and and mortality given a chance. In such places as North Korea, they have no choice, while in such places as Hong Kong, choices are made to improve. Is it coincidence that Hong Kong is so wealthy and North Korea so impoverished?


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:
Vessel wrote:

You are wrong. The society is not only the sum of individuals but is also the natural laws that exist alongside and within these individuals.

Is there evidence of these natural laws?

Yes. Perhaps you were replying as I was adding the edit. What I am referring to is the way one individual's actions affect another indivdual. Human actions aren't performed in a vacuum. Actions often have some effect on the society as a whole. You are trying to concoct a fictional sort of society where what one individual does only affects that given individual. Since this society does not exist society is more than the sum of individuals. It is the individuals, their actions, the way those actions affect other individuals, the responsive actions of those indivduals, etc..

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Your example is flawed because you can not take the society away from an animal that is, by its nature, a social animal.

You are using a very different definition of society. I use society to mean a set containing people. An arbitrary set at that. Arbitrarily defined by geography. You're confusing this concept with other things.

All individuals are affected by the actions of other individuals in society. Being as that we exist with a natural necessary need to be amongst other individuals we are necessarily affecting the other individuals and this is what comprises a society.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
You can not remove the society and be left with individuals.

By removing from your mind the arbitrary set which groups those inviduals into a "society", yes, you can. Societies themselves are fictive, only the individuals that make them up are real. A set which has no members is nothing.

Read above.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
The society is still a natural part of each and every individual. Even our families are miniature societies and they are necessary to existence as without the coupling there is no individual.

So if there is only one individual on earth, then there really isn't, because there's nothing to couple with?

The society is a natural part of the individual but it can not exist unless there is another individual upon which actions can have some affect. That does not reduce society to the sum of the individuals, adding two individuals together necessarily includes their affects on one another.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I would go as far as to propose we have no basis within our human psychology to truly consider the needs or desires of the individual.

Then your needs and desires and your opinion of what the needs and desires of the collective are are entirely irrelevant and should be completely disreguarded.

That conclusion is not supported by my statement. It would only be supported if I said we could not consider the needs of the society since the society is more than the sum of the individuals as I have explained. Besides you should have just pointed out that it was an unsupported assertion as it is just something I propose with no support offered. The reason I think this might be true is because we are inherently social so it would seem to me to be a reasonable assumption that we have evolved to make decisions that naturally take into account the affect we believe our actions will have on others. Anyway, its really not important to the conversation. Nothing else I've said relies on this being true.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
If everyone in a society has their own personal freedom (which you see to think is best for the individual) to do exactly as they wish but mortality and poverty rates (some of the ways we measure the health of a society) increase then obviously you're statement that what is best for the individual is necessarily best for the society is incorrect.

First of all, your standard of measuring the health of a society are arbitrary.

First, any means of measuring anything is arbitrary yet we still use the measurements. Still, these are legitimate ways the health of a society is measured. If survival and ease of survival are not adequate measures of the health of a society then your idea of a society is counter productive to human existence.

Quote:
Second, they have the freedom to improve their condition in life as they see fit, and they'll work towards that because they are permitted to. Third, poverty and mortality are not results of freedom.

Second, they can only accomplish what they are not prohibited from accomplishing by the actions of others.

Third, I didn't say they were.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
How could this be explained if the needs of the society was simply the sum of the needs (desires) of the individuals?

Explaining why your hypothetical world where people are free but poverty and mortality are high is impossible because you didn't give me any circumstances about why poverty and mortality are high in the first place. It's irrational to simply assume freedom made it happen as there are many more factors which contribute.

Yes, it was a poorly constructed hypothetical. The point was meant to be that because the people of a given society have more freedom does not in any way lead us to believe the given society will be better off. It is not a necessary conclusion. I see no reason to assume this is true.

Quote:
If it is your belief that this has empirical evidence in pre-regulation industry (my assumption), then you make a post hoc propter hoc fallacy in assuming that unregulated industry is the reason for this. Poverty and mortality fall as technological progress is made, irrelevant of regulation. What we have today is not the benefits of regulation but the benefits of industry, it is not government but the market that has made our lives better.

Yeah, not at all my point, but I can understand how the hypothetical threw you.

Quote:
Once people were actually free, the good of society would be revealed by the actions people choose. They will choose what is best for them. Allowing everyone to choose what is best for themselves and not aggressive against other individuals will allow them to decide and act on their own ideas of an improvement in conditions, and if everyone does this, it is likely that everyone will experience an improvement in conditions. They will act in such a way as to cure their poverty and and mortality given a chance. In such places as North Korea, they have no choice, while in such places as Hong Kong, choices are made to improve. Is it coincidence that Hong Kong is so wealthy and North Korea so impoverished?

These aren't only unsupported assertions but nothing more than wishful dreams. Their is no basis in the real world to believe this to be what would happen. I have not seen any one of the people who advocate libertine ideologies bring anything other than unsupported assertions to the conversation. There has been no reason given for us to assume that people will just play nice and that power will not dominate and oppress weakness. once this starts there is no clear line on where the domination and oppression stop.

Because Hong Kong is freer and has a healthier society than North Korea does not mean that the freer a society the healthier the society. Because I like chocolate and eating it makes me happy does not mean the more chocolate I eat the happier I will be.

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: In such places as

Quote:
In such places as North Korea, they have no choice, while in such places as Hong Kong, choices are made to improve. Is it coincidence that Hong Kong is so wealthy and North Korea so impoverished?

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: We don't

Kalnik wrote:

We don't need public schooling. Public schooling is a failure in its own. Literacy and graduation rates are always very low, due to the school not being subject to any competition. Education is a service, not a requirement. Competition always benefits the consumer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Apparently the literacy rate is 99.7%.  Is that considered low these days?  


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Kalnik wrote:

We don't need public schooling. Public schooling is a failure in its own. Literacy and graduation rates are always very low, due to the school not being subject to any competition. Education is a service, not a requirement. Competition always benefits the consumer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Apparently the literacy rate is 99.7%. Is that considered low these days? Also, start paying attention more. The article is most likely not factual.  Due to the dispute going on about that article right now, this evidence has zero credibility.

 

Wow, a wikipedia article which contains a disclaimer about the factual accuracy of the article itself. On top of that, it comes from another arm of the government. I don't know what it is with people believing face-value reports from magical lands of officialdom. Once again, stop getting your information from bureaucracies.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: Wow, a

Kalnik wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article which contains a disclaimer about the factual accuracy of the article itself. On top of that, it comes from another arm of the government. I don't know what it is with people believing face-value reports from magical lands of officialdom. Once again, stop getting your information from bureaucracies.

So apart from your ad hominem response do you have anything to back up your claim that the literacy rate is low?


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Kalnik wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article which contains a disclaimer about the factual accuracy of the article itself. On top of that, it comes from another arm of the government. I don't know what it is with people believing face-value reports from magical lands of officialdom. Once again, stop getting your information from bureaucracies.

So apart from your ad hominem response do you have anything to back up your claim that the literacy rate is low?

 

That wasn't an ad hominem response. Ad hominem means:

"Person A makes claim X"

"There is something objectionable about Person A"

"Therefore, claim X must be wrong"

 

I didn't attack you, I attacked the evidence you put forth. I never even mentioned you. The article you presented has an ongoing dispute about its accuracy, so it can't be said to be correct.

 

I do have something though, something even better than estimates and percentages.

http://www.mises.org/story/1425

This site has articles that are written by scholars in history, economics, and mathematics. It's a privately operated institute.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: On top of that, it

Quote:

On top of that, it comes from another arm of the government. I don't know what it is with people believing face-value reports from magical lands of officialdom. Once again, stop getting your information from bureaucracies.

How wouldn't that be ad hominem? In this case it appears you are attacking the fact that it comes from the gov't rather than the data itself.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Quote: On top

qbg wrote:
Quote:

On top of that, it comes from another arm of the government. I don't know what it is with people believing face-value reports from magical lands of officialdom. Once again, stop getting your information from bureaucracies.

How wouldn't that be ad hominem? In this case it appears you are attacking the fact that it comes from the gov't rather than the data itself.

 I was taking about the poster, but if you want to go that way:

Since government is a collective, and collectives are fictive entities (meaning that it is made of individuals and can not be separated from them) an "ad hominem" attack against a collective entity isn't really ad hominem, since it is only an idea, and not anything real.  So really, I already did attack the data. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: I was

Kalnik wrote:

I was taking about the poster, but if you want to go that way:

Since government is a collective, and collectives are fictive entities (meaning that it is made of individuals and can not be separated from them) an "ad hominem" attack against a collective entity isn't really ad hominem, since it is only an idea, and not anything real. So really, I already did attack the data.

So it'll be useless to quote any study from a university since a university is a collective, as is any scientific journal, magazine, publishing house or whatever.  The UN collects some census data from countries and organizes that into a report but it's all invalid because the UN financed the work.

Since you also claim all governments are fictional then that must mean we currently live in the Libertarian dream world where there are no governments, no organized religion or any soccer teams.

How utterly strange what you'll find on the internet these days. 


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Kalnik wrote:

I was taking about the poster, but if you want to go that way:

Since government is a collective, and collectives are fictive entities (meaning that it is made of individuals and can not be separated from them) an "ad hominem" attack against a collective entity isn't really ad hominem, since it is only an idea, and not anything real. So really, I already did attack the data.

So it'll be useless to quote any study from a university since a university is a collective, as is any scientific journal, magazine, publishing house or whatever. The UN collects some census data from countries and organizes that into a report but it's all invalid because the UN financed the work.

Since you also claim all governments are fictional then that must mean we currently live in the Libertarian dream world where there are no governments, no organized religion or any soccer teams.

How utterly strange what you'll find on the internet these days.

I posted an article. The article has an author. The author has a name. The author is an individual. The author just so happens to be a part of a collective, consisting of other individuals with names.

No, we are not living the "Libertarian dream." Just because the idea of government is a collective, doesn't refute the fact that it contains individuals. Again, a collective can't be separable to what it consists of. Collectives are not real, but individuals are. It is true, that there is no such thing as a legitimate collective concept of government. But what is real, is the fact that a group of individuals with guns refer to themselves as a collective, and believe that collective exists independently of themselves.

 If a group of individuals under the collective identity of "government" aren't able to realize that a thing can not be separable to the sum of its parts (2+2=5), then it can not be said that they can measure or know what is best for society, since they believe that a society is an entity unto itself.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kalnik wrote: I posted an

Kalnik wrote:

I posted an article. The article has an author. The author has a name. The author is an individual. The author just so happens to be a part of a collective, consisting of other individuals with names.

No, we are not living the "Libertarian dream." Just because the idea of government is a collective, doesn't refute the fact that it contains individuals. Again, a collective can't be separable to what it consists of. Collectives are not real, but individuals are. It is true, that there is no such thing as a legitimate collective concept of government. But what is real, is the fact that a group of individuals with guns refer to themselves as a collective, and believe that collective exists independently of themselves.

If a group of individuals under the collective identity of "government" aren't able to realize that a thing can not be separable to the sum of its parts (2+2=5), then it can not be said that they can measure or know what is best for society, since they believe that a society is an entity unto itself.

The UN study was done by individuals yet you still had a problem with it.  Your position is just too absurd to bother with, it shows the depths of depravity of your position that you'll resort to believing that everything the government touches is bad, unless you need to partake of it.  How did I manage to present a UN study if the UN doesn't exist?  Really, what utter nonsense. 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Yes. Perhaps

Vessel wrote:
Yes. Perhaps you were replying as I was adding the edit. What I am referring to is the way one individual's actions affect another indivdual. Human actions aren't performed in a vacuum. Actions often have some effect on the society as a whole. You are trying to concoct a fictional sort of society where what one individual does only affects that given individual. Since this society does not exist society is more than the sum of individuals. It is the individuals, their actions, the way those actions affect other individuals, the responsive actions of those indivduals, etc..

This does not mean all people must be dealt with as a single collective. All objects in the universe influence all other objects with gravity, we don't let that stop us from dealing with objects singularly.

Vessel wrote:
All individuals are affected by the actions of other individuals in society. Being as that we exist with a natural necessary need to be amongst other individuals we are necessarily affecting the other individuals and this is what comprises a society.

Which does not refute individualism. Maybe it would help if I defined it as such:

Individualism deals with the sovereign unit of the individual.

Collectivism deals with the sovereign unit of the collective.

I believe sovereignty rests in the individuals. Voluntary collectives are individualistic collectives, as each individual is acting as a sovereign.

Collective sovereignty is involuntary from the individual's perspective.

Vessel wrote:
The society is a natural part of the individual but it can not exist unless there is another individual upon which actions can have some affect. That does not reduce society to the sum of the individuals, adding two individuals together necessarily includes their affects on one another.

If society is a set which excludes others, then it is independantly a mental grouping and otherwise just the sum of it's parts.

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I would go as far as to propose we have no basis within our human psychology to truly consider the needs or desires of the individual.

Then your needs and desires and your opinion of what the needs and desires of the collective are are entirely irrelevant and should be completely disreguarded.

That conclusion is not supported by my statement.

"We have no basis to consider the individual"

"You are an individual, therefore we have no basis to consider you."

"That conclusion is not supported by my statement."

I must have misinterpreted something. Please point out what.

Quote:
It would only be supported if I said we could not consider the needs of the society since the society is more than the sum of the individuals as I have explained.

If we could not consider the needs of collectives, then we could only consider the needs of individuals.

Quote:
Besides you should have just pointed out that it was an unsupported assertion as it is just something I propose with no support offered.

It wasn't an unsupported assertion, the phrasing said to me that it was only your opinion, and I have no grounds on which to doubt that it is your opinion.

Quote:
The reason I think this might be true is because we are inherently social so it would seem to me to be a reasonable assumption that we have evolved to make decisions that naturally take into account the affect we believe our actions will have on others.

Which is not incompatible with individualism.

Vessel wrote:
Yes, it was a poorly constructed hypothetical. The point was meant to be that because the people of a given society have more freedom does not in any way lead us to believe the given society will be better off. It is not a necessary conclusion. I see no reason to assume this is true.

Welfare is decreased by destruction. Collectivist mechanisms of force can by definition only destroy and threaten to destroy. What is destroyed reduces welfare. What is threatened deflects useful resources from more highly valued ends to lesser valued ends, decreasing efficiency of effort, and thus the potential welfare increase that effort could otherwise have brought about. Freedom, or more specifically, liberty, is what you have when nobody is aggressing or threatening to aggress against you, in terms used above, where nobody is destroying and threatening to destroy.

Quote:
These aren't only unsupported assertions but nothing more than wishful dreams. Their is no basis in the real world to believe this to be what would happen.

You don't think that if people are miserable and capable of improving conditions, they will act to improve conditions? That's what I just said.

Quote:
I have not seen any one of the people who advocate libertine ideologies bring anything other than unsupported assertions to the conversation.

We start debate with the more advanced ideas and the ideas that those rest upon rest in turn upon more basic ideas. If I should just get to the basic ideas, then let's start with self-ownership.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Quote:
There has been no reason given for us to assume that people will just play nice and that power will not dominate and oppress weakness.

Well the absence of the existing system of power and domination and oppression of weakness, the government, would be gone, and therefore while I don't believe it will totally eliminate it, it will vastly reduce it, and thus reduce it's effects, and since it's effects are bad, the result will be good.

Quote:
once this starts there is no clear line on where the domination and oppression stop.

Precisely why I oppose government, because I recognize government as domination and oppression.

Quote:
Because Hong Kong is freer and has a healthier society than North Korea does not mean that the freer a society the healthier the society. Because I like chocolate and eating it makes me happy does not mean the more chocolate I eat the happier I will be.

However tendencies do exist which indicates a correlation.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: So apart

D-cubed wrote:
So apart from your ad hominem response do you have anything to back up your claim that the literacy rate is low?

And

qbg wrote:
How wouldn't that be ad hominem? In this case it appears you are attacking the fact that it comes from the gov't rather than the data itself.
 

Not accepting a source that has a potential conflict of interest in the information provided does not constitute an ad hominem.

D-cubed wrote:
How did I manage to present a UN study if the UN doesn't exist?

If someone puts out a study while claiming to be "The UN", then you can produce a study by the UN, whether the UN is imaginary or not.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Did someone let you out of

Did someone let you out of the sandbox?  Come back when you have something useful to add.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:
This does not mean all people must be dealt with as a single collective. All objects in the universe influence all other objects with gravity, we don't let that stop us from dealing with objects singularly.

I did not say all people must be dealt with as a collective. That is a strawman. Of course people can be dealt with as individuals. I am saying it is better for the society if we deal with it as a society and not as individuals.

Quote:
Which does not refute individualism. Maybe it would help if I defined it as such:

Individualism deals with the sovereign unit of the individual.

Collectivism deals with the sovereign unit of the collective.

I believe sovereignty rests in the individuals. Voluntary collectives are individualistic collectives, as each individual is acting as a sovereign.

Yeah, I know where you are coming from, but I think you are wrong. I believe that what is best for the society is what we should worry about. By the nature of the composition of a society this should in turn be what is best for the highest percentage of individuals.

Quote:
Collective sovereignty is involuntary from the individual's perspective.

So what? As I said, I do not believe it is the individual we should be concerned with.

Quote:
If society is a set which excludes others, then it is independantly a mental grouping and otherwise just the sum of it's parts.

How did you get that society is a group which excludes others from that? Society is as explained before individuals and the way those individuals affect and react to one another.

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I would go as far as to propose we have no basis within our human psychology to truly consider the needs or desires of the individual.

Then your needs and desires and your opinion of what the needs and desires of the collective are are entirely irrelevant and should be completely disreguarded.

That conclusion is not supported by my statement.

"We have no basis to consider the individual"

"You are an individual, therefore we have no basis to consider you."

"That conclusion is not supported by my statement."

I must have misinterpreted something. Please point out what.

I don't want to waste time and space on this because it is unimportant and the more I think about it the more I dislike it but I will point out the flaw in arriving at your conclusion from what I said.

I did not say we could not consider the individual, I said we could not consider the needs and desires of the individual. Since I was not speaking from my needs and desires but from my reason the conclusion you offered was unsupported.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the points regarding this quote because, as I had stated, it is unimportant to the conversation.

Quote:
Welfare is decreased by destruction. Collectivist mechanisms of force can by definition only destroy and threaten to destroy. What is destroyed reduces welfare. What is threatened deflects useful resources from more highly valued ends to lesser valued ends, decreasing efficiency of effort, and thus the potential welfare increase that effort could otherwise have brought about. Freedom, or more specifically, liberty, is what you have when nobody is aggressing or threatening to aggress against you, in terms used above, where nobody is destroying and threatening to destroy.

Collectivist mechanics of force can only destroy and threaten to destroy from the perspective of the oppressed individual, but from the persepective of the collective they can achieve. Slave labor anyone?

Did you have a point in the above?

Quote:
You don't think that if people are miserable and capable of improving conditions, they will act to improve conditions? That's what I just said.

I am sure they will. What each individual considers improved conditions will necessarilly, unless all people suddenly become carbon copies, negatively affect other individuals however. This is where the serious problems arise.

Quote:
We start debate with the more advanced ideas and the ideas that those rest upon rest in turn upon more basic ideas. If I should just get to the basic ideas, then let's start with self-ownership.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

No offense, but I don't chase down links in internet conversations. If you want to make a point and have me address it please do so within the thread.

Quote:
Well the absence of the existing system of power and domination and oppression of weakness, the government, would be gone, and therefore while I don't believe it will totally eliminate it, it will vastly reduce it, and thus reduce it's effects, and since it's effects are bad, the result will be good.

There is no reason to believe this to be true.

Quote:
Precisely why I oppose government, because I recognize government as domination and oppression.

I recognize the fact that without a government the most powerful individual or group is free to dominate and oppress with no limiting factor.

Quote:
However tendencies do exist which indicates a correlation.

If you want to cherry pick tendencies. You are pointing out the slat and missing the barn. Every oppressive society is born of a free society and formed of individuals who had the freedom to oppress others.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: I am saying

Vessel wrote:
I am saying it is better for the society if we deal with it as a society and not as individuals.

Society is a group.

Groups are the sum of their parts.

What is good for the parts is good for the groups. 

Quote:
Yeah, I know where you are coming from, but I think you are wrong. I believe that what is best for the society is what we should worry about. By the nature of the composition of a society this should in turn be what is best for the highest percentage of individuals.

You're assuming collectivism to demonstrate collectivism. There is no reason to believe that what is good for society is good for the highest percentage of individuals. If it is determined that brand A soup is desired by the majority if individuals, we do not collectively force everyone to eat brand A soup (this would be collectivism, dealing with the sovereign collective). We allow brand B, C, and D soups, and let all the individuals choose their own soup (sovereign individual). If 40% like brand A and 20% like B, 15% like C, and 5% like D, we don't tell people "Brand A is the only soup you can eat/you must eat brand A soup" (sovereign collective), as it's harmful to the greater percentage. 

 

Quote:
So what? As I said, I do not believe it is the individual we should be concerned with.

You cannot believe the collective welfare is important without considering the individual which is part of that collective. 

Quote:
How did you get that society is a group which excludes others from that? Society is as explained before individuals and the way those individuals affect and react to one another.

People in America are in a different society from people in China. People in North Korea are in a different society from the Somalis. Iraqis and Indians live in two different societies. People in Alabama are in a different society from Massechusetts. Societies are exclusive, they exclude others.

 

Quote:
Collectivist mechanics of force can only destroy and threaten to destroy from the perspective of the oppressed individual, but from the persepective of the collective they can achieve. Slave labor anyone?

Person 1 + Person 2 = Collective.

If Person 1 gains at Person 2's expense, collective welfare goes down compraed to Person 1 and Person 2 gaining from that which is around them.

Quote:
I am sure they will. What each individual considers improved conditions will necessarilly, unless all people suddenly become carbon copies, negatively affect other individuals however. This is where the serious problems arise.

You must assume zero-sum or objective value theory or a similar principle for this to even remotely make sense, and zero-sum is obviously incorrect.

An individual can gain without doing so at others expense. If I fix my leaky pipe under the sink, my goals do not compete with other people's goals, they do not negatively affect other individuals. You had to assume collectivism for this.

 

Quote:

No offense, but I don't chase down links in internet conversations. If you want to make a point and have me address it please do so within the thread.

I ask that you make an exception here. It's a short flash video that explains the basics in very simple and easy-to-understand terms. The graphical presentation clarifies the points enough that I you would take twice as long reading a text explanation as you would simply watching the short video. 

Quote:
Quote:
Well the absence of the existing system of power and domination and oppression of weakness, the government, would be gone, and therefore while I don't believe it will totally eliminate it, it will vastly reduce it, and thus reduce it's effects, and since it's effects are bad, the result will be good.

There is no reason to believe this to be true.

Yes there is. I just gave you reason.

Government = opressive, dominative system

oppression and domination = bad

any system that is based on oppression and domination = bad.

therefore government is bad. 

 

Quote:
I recognize the fact that without a government the most powerful individual or group is free to dominate and oppress with no limiting factor.

Which is indistinguishable from a government except in the aura of legitemacy, a mere perception which does not change the thing itself.

Quote:
Every oppressive society is born of a free society and formed of individuals who had the freedom to oppress others.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength? 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Society is a group.

Quote:

Society is a group.


Groups are the sum of their parts.

What is good for the parts is good for the groups.


Are groups in this case the sum of their parts?  If they are then it would follow that a group could not do mork work than the sum of its parts could do.  But this is absurd.  If a group needed to move an object so heavy that no individual could lift it individually, then if the group is the sum of its part, the group could not move it.  However, by cooperating, the group COULD move it.

Also, is what is good for the parts good for the group as a whole?  The prisoner's dilemma points out that this is false.

Quote:

Government = opressive, dominative system

oppression and domination = bad

any system that is based on oppression and domination = bad.

therefore government is bad.

Substitute in "hierarchy" for "government" and it still holds.

--------

Question: What is "freedom"?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Are groups in

qbg wrote:

Are groups in this case the sum of their parts? If they are then it would follow that a group could not do mork work than the sum of its parts could do. But this is absurd. If a group needed to move an object so heavy that no individual could lift it individually, then if the group is the sum of its part, the group could not move it. However, by cooperating, the group COULD move it.

Cooperation does not create something more than just the sum of the parts.

Quote:
Also, is what is good for the parts good for the group as a whole? The prisoner's dilemma points out that this is false.

The prisoner's dilemma is a unique example and in it's theoretical status has to ignore certain factors that might play a part in real examples.

In a non-theoretical example, they could have other things which motivate them to cooperate, for example of they depend on one another when free, if one is free and the other is not, they will both have little reason to betray as once free, they are without the person they need to make it in the world. In non-theoretical examples, they can communicate and influence each other's actions, for example one prisoner may accept a payment from the other in 10 years for $400,000 for the other to go free, in this case, one prisoner values $400k greater than 10 years of freedom, and he gets what he wants, while the other values 10 years of freedom over $400k, and he gets what he wants. The theoretical example excludes these possibilities which exist in reality.

Also, it requires grouping the two prisoners into a collective. If the collective is voluntary, then they will work to either minimize the sentence for both of them, or pay, or something similar. If the collective is involuntary, of course they're going to fuck each other over, you can't just group people into a collective and assume they will act as such. And even if they formed a voluntary collective at one point, there is no reason to assume they will not abandon this collective.

Quote:
Substitute in "hierarchy" for "government" and it still holds.

In one sense. If the hierarchy is involuntary, then certainly, that is the very definition of government. If it is voluntary, then it is nothing more than individuals choosing to accept the advice and rewards offered by others

Quote:
Question: What is "freedom"?

Choice.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Cooperation does not

Quote:
Cooperation does not create something more than just the sum of the parts.

You are going to need to explain more

Basically, you are rejecting emergent behavior.  What about the "tragedy of the commons?"  Thats emergent behavior.  The wikipedia article on Emergence gives the stock market as an example (As a whole it precisely regulates the relative prices of companies across the world, yet it has no leader; there is no one entity which controls the workings of the entire market.) And so on.

And of course because you are rejecting emergent behavior the "tragedy of the commons" and the "tragedy of the anticommons" won't apply to "whats good for parts of the group is good for the group as a whole."

Q: What is freedom; A: Choice.
Choice?  You have a choice in deciding if you will hand over all of your money or get shot, but is that freedom?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg

qbg wrote:

Quote:
Cooperation does not create something more than just the sum of the parts.

You are going to need to explain more

All I'm saying is 1+1=2 if 2 people cooperate to move something.

You sounded to me as if you said that 1+1=1 when discussing individuals acting (saying that individuals could not get it done), and 1+1=3 when discussing them acting as a collective. I'm not saying people that cooperate aren't more effective than individuals acting alone, just that you still only have 2 individuals. But this is really besides the point.

Individualism, as I said, deals with the sovereign unit of the individual. If all the individuals are making choices to cooperate, then an individualist has no problem with it. Collectivism deals with the sovereign unit of the collective. Collective action is compatible with individual sovereignty. Individualism just asserts that the individuals are the ones actually choosing and acting in the collective name, and the collective is imaginary, it's just the name for the group.

Quote:
Basically, you are rejecting emergent behavior. What about the "tragedy of the commons?" Thats emergent behavior. The wikipedia article on Emergence gives the stock market as an example (As a whole it precisely regulates the relative prices of companies across the world, yet it has no leader; there is no one entity which controls the workings of the entire market.) And so on.

How am I rejecting emergence? I am saying that 2+2=4. From my perspective, collectivism is more like 2+2=4 and then something beyond that, or as I like to put it, 2+2=5.

Quote:
Choice? You have a choice in deciding if you will hand over all of your money or get shot, but is that freedom?

There are two levels of choice here.

(1) To decide whether or not to interact

(2) To decide on the interactions

No choice is given for (1), the other person makes up your mind for you. (2) is where some choice exists, assuming you must interact.

Freedom is being able to choose on decision (1). Slavery is not being given the choice.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed

D-cubed wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

And you you failed to answer my actual question. I compared what the RRS is doing with theism with libertine political campaigns. I made the point that standing up for principle and fighting for what you believe is right is the only way to go about changing the world.

You ignored this point and cited the status quo.

So I ask you agian, is what the RRS is trying to do in regard to changing hearts and minds on religious issues akin to my lame hope of getting people to embrace liberatianism? Seems the odds and history are stacked against us in both cases.

I wonder how things ever change.

Do me a favor and actually answer the question this time.

Funny, you had no problem ignoring all my other posts. 

Considering what we've been going through this week, I've made a good faith effort to keep up. If there is some vital point you feel I simply must address, please bring it up again. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vessel wrote:
You do nothing but claim with no supporting points that with a libertine system we would have the same corruption with more freedom.

Not quite. I simply point out that the problems people like to pin on libertine systems are already existant. I have NEVER claimed to offer a utopia, I've merely proffered a system I feel offers greater financial and social freedom at no greater costs. I've told you why I feel this is so.

Existent, yes. Rampant, no. The extent of these problems is what I believe to be the major concern of people who oppose, or seriously question the practicallity of, a libertine system.

Then you need to demonstrate how such a system would be worse.

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Of course, you added a lot of "whines", "baffled"s and capitalized words as if those somehow make your assumpotions true, but it seems with the experience you have debating idiots who use these same tactics, you would know that such is not the case.

I've never claimed that my opinion was Gospel. It does however make logical sense to me, and I'm certainly no mental slouch. If we are talking about a libertine system, we MUST speak in opinion and hypotheticals, as we have no technical frame of reference.

I do not know you well enough to judge your mental slouchiness factor with any reliability. You seem, so far, to be an intelligent enough guy. There are also many intelligent people who it does not make sense to. Does this fact truly 'baffle' you and do you really think there disagreement is 'whining'? Anyway, this is a pointless part of the discussion as it neither speaks to or against the merits of Libertine ideology.

Indeed, let's move on. 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I personally find the needs of the society to be more important than my having complete and unfettered personal freedom.

There's where we differ then, I suppose.

Yes.

Is this our hug moment? Eye-wink 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I believe that by our nature as social animals humans require some type of government to regulate the society .

And I believe such a statement damns us as a species. I believe it kills everything human about us.

If it is our nature, it can not kill everything that is human about us. This sounds a lot like a comment I would expect from a theist. You are placing humans on a non-existent pedestal. We can travel into space and a chimp can jump from tree to tree. Neither of us has done something the other can not. We've both simply moved from one place to another. There is nothing about humans that says we can function in a manner antithetic to the natural manner we witness in other animals. What exactly is this 'humaness' to which you refer?

Before I comment on this, care to comment on how you beg the question? We've not established that such systems are in fact our nature - for better or worse.

Oh, and I refer, specifically, to our autonomy. I don't think it should be sacrificed for a false sense of security or comfort. 

Quote:
Quote:
No, you seem to require capitulation and hierarchy.

I see no reason to believe otherwise. I'm not the type that is prone to believe otherwise without reason.

So you believe that people only do "what is right" when forced to or when somebody tells them to? 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
How are you supposed to get people to support a change in the system of government which would necessarilly be extremely difficult for each and every member of the country by simply saying, "Well, dude. Shit sucks right now. Might be better, you know?" You have to be able to address people's concerns if you want them to take you seriously.

The same way I entreat them to reconsider their most cherished beliefs. You do realize who you're talking too, right?

One of the core members of an internet site and radio show which I think has noble goals. Point?

The point I just made. I change minds with conversations like these, by debating, discussing, discourse, activism. How else does one do such other than at the barrel of a gun? 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
How do the poor afford to educate their children without public schools?

They do so without public schools. you pay for your own education or seek apprenticeship. I'm a firm believer that at LEAST 50% of people who go to school for worthless and make job degrees like "Communications" would be much better off learning a trade that is actually useful and employable. This is the system most of the world employs.

What countries have no public eductaion system for children ages 5-17 (or thereabouts)?

I did not say no formal education system. I said that vocational training is largely over looked and ignored in favor of worthless degrees in the US. Any vocational training can be done via a privitized apprenticeship. Germany, China, India and Austria are just a few countries that route students into such roles already. We've gotten away from that in the US. People here seem to think you need a college degree to get a proper job, and it effectively prices many people out of work - which is sent to India and China. 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]How are abused or unwanted children taken care of without a welfare system?

They aren't taken care of now. Charity should suffice at least as well as the broken system we have now.

Sure they are taken care of now. It is, by far, not a perfect system, but it is an outright lie to say they are not taken care of. And you have absolutely no good reason to think charity should suffice at any level nearly comparable to the system we have no. That is one big unsupported and unevidenced assertion.

Poor kids in the US are taken care of to a minimal degree, and it is pretty much done charity free. Now consider how much US residents give in addition to what they are already taxed to impoverished nations. US citizens keep Sally Strouthers and the Christian Children's and dozens of other feed and preach for profit organizations rolling, while kids here get by on government cheese. We OBVIOUSLY would give, we give now. Without being forcibly taxed with social security and welfare premiums, I'm sure we'd take care of the kids in the US just as well as they are taken care of now of our own voilition - afterall, charity begins at home. And we'd still have money to send to Sally. Doing away with robbing us to take care of the less fortunate amoung us would force us to look poverty in the eye and take action and responsibility for it directly. I honestly believe that. 

Quote:
Quote:
Vessel wrote:
]What incentive does the single armed man offer the impoverished individual to stay within the rules of a society? What power does the individual have against the stronger individual or the collective?

What incentive and power do they have now? I'm proffering a system based solely on merit and initiative and drive.

Which is in reality a survival of the fittest system in which the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. I see nothing to lead a rational man to believe this system would do anything other than allow the strongest to force their will on the weakest.

I'm truly sorry you see it that way. You have a rather pessimistic and cynical view of humaninty.

I think we ought to sink or swim as a speicies on our own voilition, and I don't think we need coersion or theft to get that done. Freeing us from the heavy hand of government would force us to confront social issues like poverty head on and personally, rather than simply shrug our shoulders and say, "damn, somebody ought to do something" - why don't YOU do something? Reason forbid we take on a modicum of personal and social responsibility. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.