Underlore

"The world we actually have does not meet my standards." ~Phillip K. Dick

An argument in favor of the state.

Fetched from here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109040099390757246328/posts/FkU1Zhcjukc (The underlore version has updates.)

=====
Small point, there is an easy way to not fund government atrocity legally. Maintain a low income. Opt out.What he wants is to have his cake and eat it too, and I agree he should have that opportunity, but the whole point of government is addressing common good problems.Sometimes reality forces you to choose between material prosperity and ethical integrity. I’d like to have both also. But I’m not going to rant at a video camera and still pay my taxes. He IS the blogger he derides.That’s the problem with voluntary tax, it opens the door to common good problems as no individual wants to pay for common goods because of the free rider problem. That’s why you have compulsory tax, that’s why your recourse has to be political not fiscal because people would gamble and the whole culture would suffer (See: Inside Job, 2010) because we don’t have time to check if your health insurance is paid up when we call for a helicopter to fly you to the burn center. And no sane society would leave you to die if it could and found you in debt.The whole point of insurance was the private sector’s response to such common good problems. And look how horrifically that turned out. You seriously want to have to pay an unchecked oligopoly for everything-insurance?Sometimes saving your life costs WAY more than any individual should be expected to pay as a result of bad luck. That’s what government is supposed to address. Things which no one wants to pay for or submit to but which must be paid for and submitted to or everyone suffers.

You can’t run a culture entirely by poll. (The UK basically tried in the 80s.) You can however run a politician totally by poll, but still there has to be a degree of autonomy when dealing with tragedy of the common situations and time critical situations.

Opposing the entire idea of government because current government is corrupt is to stand neck deep in a baby and bathwater situation.

“I invite you to explain to me why even a single one of these so-called public goods.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods#ExamplesTake your pick.But for the purposes of argument I’ll happily stipulate private sector solutions.I wasn’t talking about stuff. I was talking about the tragedy of the commons. Game theory type stuff.There are classes of actions which are completely within the rights of an individual which would crush the group. Pollution is an excellent example.

Potential forms of hydraulic despotism is another.

Also you’re ignoring the escalating potential for individuals to destroy the group via exotic means.

The nuclear boyscout is a good example. Also the phenomenon of biohackers and other high technology concepts, like grey goo.

“…a response so loaded with economic fallacies…”

Oh? Such as? Not being snarky, if I’m incorrect, I want to know it. This isn’t a religion for me. It’s a puzzle.

Edit: Not to mention the whole world of volition engineering.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html
http://vimeo.com/20861423

What is horrific about real insurance? You choose to pay a relatively small fee regularly to cover yourself in the event of an unforseeable catastrophic loss that you are not able to cover otherwise.The only sort of “insurance” that I can think of that turned out horrifically is so-called health insurance, which tried to apply the principles of insurance to something where it simply does not make sense. It is also largely a creation of the government: wage freezes combined with tax benefits for employers who offer health insurance to their employees began it, while increasing government spending on health subsidies and transfer payment programs like Medicare and Medicaid, combined with regulation of the insurance industry and now, a mandate that everyone buy it, keep on making it worse. There’s a reason why car and home insurance don’t work like most health insurance plans do, and thus there’s a reason why they’re affordable and work pretty well. If car insurance was like standard health insurance, it would cover everything from oil changes to washes, new brakes and tires to tune-ups, it would be tied to your job, and it would be so expensive that few would be able to afford it.
“What is horrific about real insurance?”They almost universally cancel you if you make a claim, if they don’t outright force you to sue them to pay up.The idea of insurance is like the idea of communism, great in theory, instantly corrupt in practice. Especially if the only pressure on it is market pressure.
“They were so good at what they did, they had to be stamped out by the State.”Eh, I’ll stipulate that as well for now.“On the topic of public goods, choose one of those on the list and we can talk about alternative methods of provision.”I’m not getting lost in a hypothetical with you. I’m happy to stipulate you can create a free market utopia with regard to the listed services. Convincing me is irrelevant anyway until you address the common good problem.“As for tragedy of the commons – that is something that occurs only in publicly shared property.”So your solution is to privatize everything no common anything?

How about air supply or flowing water or ground water contamination? How deep will property rights extend? How high? How will you handle EM frequency allocation or air traffic?

And during the transition how will you address the overwhelming head start the 1% and their minions have? What if one person or company ends up owning all of a critical world resource and prices it solely based on what people will pay?

I’m intentionally not bringing up intellectual property law. I also note you failed to comment on volition engineering. How do you reconcile volition engineering with volition respecting ethics?

Note: Our government is extremely corrupt.
http://underlore.com/if-not-now-when/

It needs large scale change in almost every sector. But to decry ALL regulation as destructive is simply hyperbolic and reactionary in my opinion. *shrugs* but by all means, I’d love to give you the chance to try it out. Experimentation is of extreme value.

The entire idea of government is founded on a monopoly on initiating violence. Acceptance of this policy is coerced onto everyone alive or unborn in a geographic region. Please explain to me how this is moral and I will revisit my position that government is immoral.
This obsession of “personal responsibility” which is a polite way of saying “fuck everyone else, I’m all that matters” has a number of fatal down sides.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html“The entire idea of government is founded on a monopoly on initiating violence.”There is a reason we evolved passed single celled organisms, and it’s called economy of scale.That same truth gave rise to colonial growth, tissues, organs, family units, then clans, tribes, city states, nations, and finally continent spanning cultures.You guys are acting like the government is this completely maladaptive thing that some grifter warlord thought up in the ice age and we’ve just been stuck with it ever since.This attitude is simplistic in the extreme, to put it mildly.

Granted, as I’ve said elsewhere government is mafia given legitimacy by duration, but if you could make a culture more adaptive just by excising government it would have been done by now, as countless regimes have fallen throughout history leaving people briefly leaderless, and had that been adaptive for the culture/people in question the practice would have spread or at least would have found stasis somewhere through sheer luck if nothing else.

As it stands in reality a power vacuum is almost universally maladaptive except in those isolated cases where a de facto autocracy exists predicated on extreme personal unfitness of a given ruler.

To blame all failed anarchy on outside interference while in a sense logically inescapable, also shows at least that anarch free states are no match for organized competition. Though I’m happy to stipulate that might not always be the case, especially if a small anarch group got some kind of game changing technological advantage. Pretty much whichever culture gets fAI or brain augmentation first, wins. (Or a random black swan event could carry one to global power, shit happens.)

Also there is the fact that the state is the only meaningful check on the power of the church humanity has ever seen. Ethical anti-states would not survive versus religion unleashed. Of course many tea party types are well aware of this and see it as a pro not a con.

Not to mention cults with effective indoctrination processes which brings us to the following.

Still no one has responded to the volition engineering quandary. Unleashing volition engineering in a context where volition is the only consideration would in effect be granting PR agencies the role of emperors.

And what about big pharma? Or the minds behind MKUltra? You think they are just suddenly going to play fair? Especially if they suddenly have every drug to work with and no human experimentation guidelines? If all we needed was permission there would be whole countries full of nothing but human test subjects.

Like the Book of the Subgenius or Revelation X one or the other suggests, in the face of global collapse all you need to take over is crack and ammo.

You think capable nations would see the dominoes falling and not consider doomsday biological scenarios? Also what about all the bugs we have crawling around in lvl 4 labs all over the world? How are you going to democratize that without a central authority to appeal to? Or are you just going to destroy them and all other dangerous objects of study?

Not to mention the fact that many people have no interest in learning and or no ability to learn the cognitive skills to be free and prosperous. I know the general “not my problem” type answer is to just let them die but what happens when someone less passive puts them to use with simple manipulation and various forms of hydraulic despotism?

Put simply, the state would re-evolve in a most brutal fashion unless you are enforcing some kind of homogenizing principal that must be by definition even worse than government.

The wall of police and the cruelty of soldiers shows you that any mind can be turned into a tool.

The best solution I can see is to hasten the singularity by fostering of innovation coupled with diligent reform pressure and courageous non compliance and a general tolerance for diversity so that we can more rapidly exploit and resist opportunities.

We must make ourselves and those whom we care about superior organisms and demonstrate worthiness and compassion. Talk is cheap.

This lazy and self centered disregard for our “personal responsibility” to the rest of humanity is infantile at best, and outright sadistic at worst.

“it is the state and its financial supporters the corporations that are responsible for the pollution that you blame on the individual”

I don’t blame pollution on the individual I’m saying it’s a modern version of the tragedy of the commons.

There is virtually no market pressure for an individual firm or person to reduce pollution if it also reduces profit, indeed quite the opposite, which is why against all better judgment we use coal still. What happens when someone pollutes a stream or ground water or the air and is intractable about it?

I’m not a statist in the sense that I’m all ra ra government because of some pseudo religious patriotism, I just don’t see any alternative to many of the functions of government under our current technology/genome.

You didn’t answer my question.Please justify to me why it is moral to coerce people.  Until you can justify why it is moral to coerce people, I don’t see the value in any of the philosophy that you have built on it.  I’ve tried to justify it and failed but maybe you are more enlightened than me, so please, enlighten me.This is not an answer: “There is a reason we evolved passed single celled organisms, and it’s called economy of scale.”Are you saying that coercion is moral?
Are you saying immorality is acceptable?
Are you saying institutionalized immorality is acceptable?I didn’t ask why we evolved passed single celled organisms. I asked you to explain why coercion is moral.Similar arguments as yours can and were used for slavery.  It doesn’t justify slavery.  Utilitarianism has been used to justify a consistent stream of atrocity since its inception: Communism, Socialism, War, Prohibition, Invasion of privacy, indoctrination of the public, genocide. Basically everything the elite knows will not just be accepted by the public without at a minimum euphemisms but generally direct contradictions, is always justified by utilitarianism.

Your claim about “fuck everyone else” is completely unfounded.  That appears to just be your flawed interpretation of anarchistic ideas.  “Fuck everyone else” never even entered my mind on my path to realizing government is immoral.  In fact, one of the ideas that got me onto that path in the first place was not being able to choose who to help, and the ridiculous inefficiency and almost guaranteed failure of government programs.  Not “fuck everyone else.” That is the kind of ignorant statement that a lot of people make when they are first confronted by this material.  I would assume someone who is willing to write with such verbosity on the subject in total disagreement would at least spend some time reading about it, but I don’t see how you would still be making this commonly refuted straw man if you actually had read much on the subject.

Anyway, wanting to build a society without rulers where people choose what to do with their property is not “fuck everyone else.”

“You guys are acting like the government is this completely maladaptive thing that some grifter warlord thought up in the ice age and we’ve just been stuck with it ever since.”

Why do you keep using ad hominem and strawmen?

I can’t really think of anytime anyone mentioned the ice age. Actually, most people I talk about govt with spend most of their time examining the US Government, how strong the intentions were in the beginning, and how horribly they failed.

Coercion is immoral.  Until you can justify coercion, you haven’t really justified government or anything you build on the concept of government.

“As it stands in reality a power vacuum is almost universally maladaptive except in those isolated cases where a de facto autocracy exists predicated on extreme personal unfitness of a given ruler.

To blame all failed anarchy on outside interference while in a sense logically inescapable,”

Please point out a failed anarchy that we can discuss.

Also, who is talking about a power vacuum?  Oh wait, I keep forgetting that you are new to the concept of stateless society and have no idea how it would work.  Have you ever heard of the DRO model?  Are you familiar with thought exercises about what kind of business model it takes to instigate war and conquest in a stateless society?

“Also there is the fact that the state is the only meaningful check on the power of the church humanity has ever seen.”

Which state exactly? Which one is keeping church in check exactly?  Or by “keep in check” do you mean perpetrating murder and oppression instead of letting churches do it?

“tea party types”
What is a tea party type?

“Still no one has responded to the volition engineering quandary. Unleashing volition engineering in a context where volition is the only consideration would in effect be granting PR agencies the role of emperors.”

Was I supposed to just absorb this completely unfounded claim by you instead of expecting you to back it up in some way? I find it superbly ridiculous, but the burden isn’t on my shoulders to refute it, so you need to do the leg work to justify it if you want someone to see the logic of it. Or was the authority you are trying to arrogate to yourself in your condescending and lengthy post supposed to convince me to just believe everything you say?

“And what about big pharma?”
empowered by government.
incentivized by patents to withhold products from nations who could only afford them at cheaper prices, so their monopolies won’t get upset. (refusal to sell HIV treatment to Africa)
empowered by government to legally prevent the spread of medicine technology, research, design, and formula.

“Or the minds behind MKUltra?”
A government program that probably isn’t nearly as bad as many other secret government programs and who knows how many other governments do the same and worse – is one of your items of argument against stateless society?
Would this even be probable without government? Would anyone be so mired in moral contradiction, nationalism, and open to any number of unprofitable ventures, if not for government?  Who else would bankroll such an operation?  What board of directors would agree to such an operation?

“You think capable nations would see the dominoes falling and not consider doomsday biological scenarios?”

Do you mean other nations would see a society moving towards stateless and would react?  If that is actually what you meant, this is going to start a new discussion about what it would take to move to stateless society.  It isn’t another statist type revolutionary overthrow of government. In my opinion, it would take an improved society, one that doesn’t teach people to worship authority, doesn’t abuse its children, doesn’t justify coercion with a bunch of fallacious logic but instead realizes coercion is immoral, doesn’t let an organization control any aspect of their lives that it wants, and so on. It isn’t some overnight revolt.  If this citizens of the US overthrew the US govt, another government would just be established, because the majority of the people in the US worship government authority in ways that they aren’t even cognizant of.

“Also what about all the bugs we have crawling around in lvl 4 labs all over the world? How are you going to democratize that without a central authority to appeal to?”

What does democratizing bugs crawling around in lvl 4 labs mean?

“Not to mention the fact that many people have no interest in learning and or no ability to learn the cognitive skills to be free and prosperous. I know the general “not my problem” type answer is to just let them die but what happens when someone less passive puts them to use with simple manipulation and various forms of hydraulic despotism?”

This paragraph suggests that you are aware of a cognitive skill set required to be free and prosperous.  Please share the details on this claim as either you’re full of shit or you have valuable information no doubt for all humankind.

Again, the selfish accusation is nonsense and does not reflect society, especially a society so willing to take care of the needy and composed of such a majority of such caring people that they are willing to continue justifying an abusive government for reasons of taking care of the needy.

“Put simply, the state would re-evolve in a most brutal fashion unless you are enforcing some kind of homogenizing principal that must be by definition even worse than government.”

Do you really have any desire whatsoever to elaborate on any of these brief descriptions of incredibly broad claims?

Also, what exactly do you see happening that will stop, or hell even slow down the evolving monstrosity of the US govt?  Or do you honestly see the US govt as a benevolent good that is better than ANY alternative. I mean you are defining the alternative without even reading other peoples ideas apparently.

“The best solution I can see is to hasten the singularity by fostering of innovation”

How and why?

“coupled with diligent reform pressure”

Who will exert this pressure?

“and courageous non compliance”

What does this mean?

“and a general tolerance for diversity”

Which intolerance for diversity are you looking to eradicate?

“so that we can more rapidly exploit and resist opportunities.”

Such as? And for what reasons?

“We must make ourselves and those whom we care about superior organisms and demonstrate worthiness and compassion.”

I agree, by continuing to enlighten people who live abused and abusive lives justified on moral contradictions and broken recycled culture.

“Talk is cheap.”
You don’t say?  It must not be that cheap considering the amount of baseless claims you make.

“This lazy and self centered disregard for our “personal responsibility” to the rest of humanity is infantile at best, and outright sadistic at worst.”

And the third iteration of your triple fallacy about how selfish people are who realize coercion is immoral.  No matter how much you wrap your strawman argument with appeal to emotion and then aim it at people who are telling you initiating violence is immoral… it’s still just a fallacy and it still doesn’t give any weight or logic to your argument.  But my illogical internet acquaintance, I see a beautiful road of enlightenment ahead of you because if you’re so thoroughly misguided  as to still be making statements like that, there’s truly no where else to go but up as you have truly hit the rock bottom of ignorant bullshit to ad hominem attack anarchists with.

Yay! Fun!

“You didn’t answer my question.”
Yes I did, you simply chose to ignore it and reiterate your attack on a paper tiger of your own making. Coercion isn’t at issue just because you want it to be. I explained the evolutionary purpose of cooperation and I explained that government is a manifestation of the advantages of exploiting economies of scale.You fail/refuse to understand that root.“Your claim about “fuck everyone else” is completely unfounded.”Total disregard for the health and well being of others on the grounds that government efforts to help them are imperfect is a nirvana fallacy used to justify personal irresponsibility towards them.

“…you actually had read much on the subject.”

You confuse exposure with agreement, probably because you only read things you know in advance you’ll tend to agree with. Your only opposition likely comes in this context, as rare dissent in otherwise friendly corners.

“Anyway, wanting to build a society without rulers where people choose what to do with their property is not “fuck everyone else.””

Only because you have a flawed understanding of the consequences and/or you dismiss them as having been self imposed.

You think your choices are perfect. You refuse to face the fact that desire and whim and greed are insufficient to run a just culture that can compete/coexist with its peers. Where is a single example of a nation without rulers being anything but a catastrophe or a waste land?

“I can’t really think of anytime anyone mentioned the ice age.”

Your ignorance of the scope and consequence of your argument is betrayed by such statements. Further your ignorance of human development is also exposed. Your notions of government, if they are correct would have historical consequences, not just hypothetical utopian ones.

When government developed is a significant indicator of how it developed.

“Actually, most people I talk about govt with spend most of their time examining the US Government, how strong the intentions were in the beginning, and how horribly they failed.”

That’s because they are culturally myopic and over estimate the importance of their own culture in the historical context. But even within such narrow confines the dissolution of the articles of confederation in exchange for the Constitution defend my previous assertion of central authority being adaptive.

Update: And besides, our whole vision of America’s founding is basically a lie.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655

http://www.cracked.com/video_18793_6-myths-you-probably-believe-about-american-revolution.html

Given those roots, it’s not super shocking to find we are functionally and literally a fascist oligarchy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini

“Coercion is immoral.”

Blanket statements doom your argument. In your opinion it is unethical to sequester the lethally insane or the infected? I can offer thousands of hypothetical examples of coercion not just being moral, but being morally urgent.

“Until you can justify coercion, you haven’t really justified government…”

I can “justify” government from a number of different directions. But you have a fetish for coercion, so fine.

Plague is spreading, people are panicked, the infected want to leave the island of Manhattan, no vaccine or cure is forthcoming. Sealing off the island is both coercive and morally urgent.

That’s a simplistic toddler example and but one manifestation of a whole class of events represented by the tragedy of the commons, as I explained.

“Please point out a failed anarchy that we can discuss.”

O.o *points at tin pot war lords and tribal war zones all over the planet*

Better still how about you show me a stable remotely significant/successful anarchy somewhere.

“Have you ever heard of the DRO model?”

There isn’t a “the” model. It’s just a catch all term for various theories about how disputes might be dealt with in the absence of government. But any kind of regulatory body is a form of government. How could any DRO function without coercion of the person deemed most at fault who refuses to agree?

“Are you familiar with thought exercises about what kind of business model it takes to instigate war and conquest in a stateless society?”

How is that relevant? Conquest in a stateless society would be swift and bloodless. The most adept PR agent would be in charge almost instantly. The shape of the resulting society would depend almost entirely on this individual’s temperament.

“Which state exactly? Which one is keeping church in check exactly?”

States collectively. That’s why there are still so many religions on the planet. Had the Catholics had their way and not been checked by European states (and of course the middle eastern states) all other religions would have gone the way of the Cathars.

“What is a tea party type?”

O.o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

“Was I supposed to just absorb this completely unfounded claim by you instead of expecting you to back it up in some way?”

I already did, not that I expect you to actually click a link you presume to be in opposition, utterly consumed by choice supportive bias and the endowment effect as you are.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html
http://vimeo.com/20861423

Your ignorance of volition engineering is hilarious since you presume to defend anarchy. Have you ever even heard of Chomsky? He wrote this pretty popular book called “Manufacturing Consent” perhaps you should read it, and while you’re at it look up Edward Bernays and Yellow Journalism just for spice :)

“empowered by government.”

Yes they are, and did you miss how they got that way? They are a drug cartel, literally. You think they are going to give up that kind of power? The power over pain, life, death, and addiction? Indeed the power over sanity itself? Big Pharma could manufacture loyalty by the kiloton. You think people are going to boycott the only source of insulin?

“Would this even be probable without government?”

It gave rise to the very concept of a PsyOp. It’s a particularly effective route to power. One corrupt and skilled volition engineer is all it would take in a stateless society. And we have 177 billion dollar industry churning them out en masse.

You don’t even know who your rulers are do you.

“If that is actually what you meant, this is going to start a new discussion…”

I respect your good intentions. But your energy is better spent on reform of disruptive technological advance.

“…the majority of the people in the US worship government authority in ways that they aren’t even cognizant of.”

Exactly, and who taught them how to engender this Limbic Loyalty? (Edward Bernays and Company.)

Update: http://www.truthdig.com/report/page4/american_jihad_2014_20140106

“What does democratizing bugs crawling around in lvl 4 labs mean?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratizing#Knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4

“This paragraph suggests that you are aware of a cognitive skill set required to be free and prosperous.”

Uhh, for starters the entire suite of critical thinking skills, especially if you want your populace to be anything better than a fickle mob. How about the scientific method? How about a basic understanding of how to detect and define flaws in one’s thinking, premises, or logic? How about basic research skills so they can become aware enough of their surroundings to make informed contribution to policy discussion? etc etc

http://underlore.com/new-school/ It takes WORK to be a free thinker. Indeed, that’s the greatest weapon tyranny ever had. The default stupidity of fresh humans. Did it never occur to you why mass was in Latin for so long despite no one in the audience being able to speak it? Even now education is obviously not designed to enrich.George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

Update: http://underlore.com/the-tyranny-of-compulsory-schooling/ Note that these schools primarily serve corporate interests, not state interests. The manufacture drones first and soldiers second.

“the selfish accusation is nonsense and does not reflect society”

O.o What planet do you live on? Ask half the people in this thread what they think about “entitlements.” Shit, ask Republican voters generally how they feel about helping the poor, the sick, the unemployed. Ask Ayn Rand fans.

Update: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html

“Do you really have any desire whatsoever to elaborate on any of these brief descriptions of incredibly broad claims?”

Pardon me for assuming you’ve done your homework. Ask questions if you want clarification. This is a big subject and I use a lot of short hand and even debating me at this level requires a heap of prior reading. I don’t consider it a flaw to not have exposure or understanding of these concepts, but it’s not my responsibility to tutor you. Though I am willing to try.

Update: Ironically this is more proof that the mob can be trusted to educate itself sufficient to make truly real choices. Your ignorance makes you vulnerable to volition engineering. And my education is making me wonder if education is even a shield. Maybe they own me too.

“Also, what exactly do you see happening that will stop, or hell even slow down the evolving monstrosity of the US govt?”

Excellent question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Intelligence_explosion

“I mean you are defining the alternative without even reading other peoples ideas apparently.”

O.o hardly. I’m not saying the US gov is the best or only way

You’re so narrow. You realize the US is only ~5% of the population right? We’re on the way out in every measurable way. We are a degenerate culture by most every long term objective definition relative to our peers.

“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.” ~Oscar Wilde

“Who will exert this pressure?”Us, hopefully, and everyone else with an ounce of compassion and courage.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/115460652257293860011

“What does this mean?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

“Which intolerance for diversity are you looking to eradicate?”

Virtually all of it. Right now I’d like to eliminate all these people whining about entitlement because they want other people to share their life style.

Not everyone wants to be wage slaves or ants. I think the cultural inheritance of humanity entitles (oh noes I said the dreaded E word!) all humanity to a base line level of income.

We’re soon to have robots anyway, getting used to a culture that doesn’t have a job for everyone is a reality we’re going to have to face. Otherwise we’re little better than a galactic staff infection making people work so we can make more people to put to work.

http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm

http://underlore.com/bait-and-switch/

Update: http://underlore.com/one-possible-solution/

“Such as? And for what reasons?”

Because that’s what allows a species to survive in a dynamic environment. Take for example exploiting the life cycle of plants and resisting the exploitation of disease.

Update: Apparently we can even evolve semiconductors. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/E1705

“…by continuing to enlighten people who live abused and abusive lives justified on moral contradictions and broken recycled culture.”

That’s a great approach. There are others. Personally I plan to radically modify myself with the express aim of making myself more useful to my species. (I consider you all my family.)

http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

“It must not be that cheap considering the amount of baseless claims you make.”

Oh please. I’ve got a 130K word book out there, just because I didn’t go off on every tangent and explain every last bump in the road doesn’t mean my assertions are baseless. Again, excuse the piss out of me for assuming you’ve done your homework.

“And the third iteration of your triple fallacy…”

Tell that to all the people you’re cool with starving to death on the condition that no one wants to feed them. Your anarchic utopia smells to me like a lynch mob.

“Yay! Fun!”

Yay! More blatant condescension to cover up a total lack of logic and knowledge of the subject matter.

“Yes I did you simply chose to ignore it and reiterate your attack on a paper tiger of your own making. Coercion isn’t at issue just because you want it to be.”

Self contradiction.

If “coercion” isn’t at issue, then why did you just say that you answered the question, then in the next sentence say that my question isn’t at issue?

“explained the evolutionary purpose of cooperation and I explained that government is a manifestation of the advantages of exploiting economies of scale.”

I didn’t ask you to justify cooperation. The fallacy you are using this time is called Red herring.  I asked you to justify coercion.  If you give people a choice, it’s not coercion.  If you don’t give people a choice, it’s coercion.

“You fail/refuse to understand that root.”

You fail to understand that I’m asking you to justify why it’s ok to coerce people. It’s really not a complex question, is it?  Government isn’t cooperation and it isn’t community.  The founding fathers of the US didn’t go out and ask all of the people of the geographic region to help agree to or design a new society.  They designed it and enforced it onto them.  That isn’t cooperating. It’s coercing.

If government just allowed everyone to do whatever they wanted, it wouldn’t have any power to enforce anything, and no one would follow it. Instead they’d just have a volunteer society. This is where your type goes on and on about how evil people are and all the evil things they would do – yet somehow you think all these super evil people are held back by giving them one of the most oppressive tools in history: Government.

“Total disregard for the health and well being of others on the grounds that government efforts to help them are imperfect is a nirvana fallacy used to justify personal irresponsibility towards them.”

No, you see I reject the government solutions not because they are imperfect but because they are so commonly utter failures that never solve the problems they are propagandized to be intended to solve.  Every government health care related program thus far in US history has made health care worse, less available, and more expensive.  The literacy rate is declining.  The government agents who carry out the monopoly on the initiation of violence are initiating violence against victimless criminals and even when there isn’t even a legal grounds for it.  The homeless program continues to get worse.

I actually want to get out from under the inefficient bog of government so we can actually try to solve some of these problems because clearly the track record of government to solve it has been horrible.  I understand your attraction to the sexy power of government, but government is an inefficient and non innovative organization by design.  It always slows down progress. If a new technology is developed, the government starts to regulate it.  If a new technology is developed, the government grants monopolies to the inventors, so those ideas can’t be acted on by the public without the public either paying fines or being dragged to jail or shot for trying to defend oneself from being kidnapped.  The government forces the public to absorb the cost of failed businesses when that money could have stimulated actual progress.  The government allows mega businesses to utterly violate basic economic principles to prevent competitors, raise costs, and maximize profits.

You are still building a strawman and arguing against it.  Who ever said they didn’t want to care for other people?  Why are you accusing me of not wanting to care for other people?  I give money to homeless when I see them.  I give money to people in my extended community who are down on their luck, on hard times, crushed by medical debt, and so on.  I donate to homeless children charities.  I’d give a lot more if it wasn’t for the money the government steals from me without my permission.  I would pay every penny that I give to government for helping people directly to a high performance results driven charity.  How many needy people have you given money to lately? I hope the answer isn’t zero, because advocating taking other peoples money to give to the needy isn’t caring for the needy.  Did you literally just ignore my previous post? I mean I understand that you find this to be a super powerful argument, but is it really so important to you to repeat your appeal to emotion fallacy even when it isn’t even “at issue”?

The idea that people can’t be cared for without a coercive institution of violence to force everyone to care for people is a fallacy.

You are basically making the claim that everyone is too selfish and/or bad to want to care for other people.

If everyone is so evil, how will govt help?
If the majority of people are evil, how will govt help?
If the minority of people are evil, well, are you surprised that the govt is doing so many evil things? Of course evil people would gravitate to the best tool available for carrying out evil.
If everyone is good, well, we don’t really need government anyway do we?

My position is that the government inevitably leads to not only the empowerment of evil people but to the existence of evil peolpe.

Like I said, the govt is the best tool for people to exploit others.  Nothing else even comes close.  Blame the banks? Sure… But if it wasn’t for government, no one would use the central banks when they realized how evil they are.

But then there is the comparison of political power and cocaine.  You know, how people in political power get the same kind of dopamine fueled reward response as someone using cocaine?  Hopefully you are aware of this. I mean, you are the one who isn’t being naive right? All of us anarchists and the pile of books on philosophy, psychology, praxeology, history, government theory, economics, and the arguments for and against – we’re the naive ones right?  We’re the simplistic arguing ones, right?  So you’ve read the studies about how political power alone can give a person a massive increase of dopamine production?  And the kind of people who seek this out are people with a suppressed reward response which is generally a result of a stressed mother pre-birth and abuse after birth?  And that abusing power will increase the dopamine response even further?  And just abusing people in general, doing really dangerous things, or abusing drugs all have similar effects that certain kinds of people get addicted to? I take it you know all of this?

Then there is how having to subjugate to a government your whole life, learn how to worship authority from birth, through school, and into your adulthood, keeps you a broken abused person, who will teach this to your children, who will then teach it to theirs.

“You confuse exposure with agreement, probably because you only read things you know in advance you’ll tend to agree with. Your only opposition likely comes in this context, as rare dissent in otherwise friendly corners.”

No, I was equating your elementary arguments with your being unexposed to the material of the subject matter.  The argument you are making are the arguments I made when I was new to the subject. They’re the arguments everyone makes, when they are new to the subject.

“Only because you have a flawed understanding of the consequences and/or you dismiss them as having been self imposed.”

Only because if I wasn’t being coerced by the govt to pay it, I would be giving it to more efficient causes with actual incentive to perform instead of govt programs with no incentive to perform full of employees with often guaranteed jobs with no incentive to do their job – no wonder govt programs never seem to even reduce the problems.

“You think your choices are perfect. You refuse to face the fact that desire and whim and greed are insufficient to run a just culture that can compete/coexist with its peers. Where is a single example of a nation without rulers being anything but a catastrophe or a waste land?”

No I think my choices are sound.  You haven’t given any argument yet. You’ve just been attacking my character, and in sweeping generality the character of anyone who wants a stateless society.  You refuse to offer any explanation to your ideas.  You refuse to offer any explanation as to why the ideas I’ve shared are wrong.

Like I said, where is a single example of an anarchy?

“Your ignorance of the scope and consequence of your argument is betrayed by such statements. Further your ignorance of human development is also exposed. Your notions of government, if they are correct would have historical consequences, not just hypothetical utopian ones.”

And the next fallacy is quoting out of context.  Clearly I was talking about people not bringing up ice age governmental roots in my discussion. I mean, no one would have made the mistake you are trying to suggest, so seriously, don’t waste my time.

Of course they have historical consequences.  Since the inception of government people have been coerced by the ruling power.  Every horribly thing imaginable has been done in the name of government legality.  And the idea of limited government clearly has historical consequences as governments always grow – for example, the US govt.  The smallest govt in history became the biggest govt in history.  The smallest govt in history is now indoctrinated children to worship authority all through their childhood and is now using unmanned aerial vehicles to spy on them, with option to assassinate them. ← historical consequences, not just hypothetical utopian ones.

The utopian remark is another straw man.  I never said anything about perfect society. I said coercion is immoral. Being coerced is the foundation of the worst societies and allows less oppressive societies to escalate into the most oppressive.

“That’s because they are culturally myopic and over estimate the importance of their own culture in the historical context. But even within such narrow confines the dissolution of the articles of confederation in exchange for the Constitution defend my previous assertion of central authority being adaptive.”

Cute, but actually it’s because it’s the most documented government in history with the greatest of intentions and possibly in contrast, the greatest failure, which is still getting worse.  It’s also the one that is oppressing most of the people in my circles and the one that we need to deal directly against.

“Blanket statements doom your argument. In your opinion it is unethical to sequester the lethally insane or the infected? I can offer thousands of hypothetical examples of coercion not just being moral, but being morally urgent.”

Blanked statements?  Saying “initiating violence against people to force them against their will is immoral” is a blanket statement?  Surely you jest?

“I can “justify” government from a number of different directions. But you have a fetish for coercion, so fine.”

Of course you can, because unlike people concerned with logic and philosophy, you are not concerned with reasoning from first principles.  So you are perfectly fine with starting from any point in the chain of corrupted morals to start justifying initiating violence against people.

“Plague is spreading, people are panicked, the infected want to leave the island of Manhattan, no vaccine or cure is forthcoming. Sealing off the island is both coercive and morally urgent.”

And we finally make it to the ever inevitable refuge of the person with no argument: life boat scenarios.  Those wonderful all encompassing situations that somehow are considered to break argument in the mind of the user even though they never work – yet government policy has a clear history of generating and violating people in lifeboat like scenarios, repeatedly.

So of course the infected people in this lifeboat scenario disagree with the quarantine and refuse to be sealed off. So the people trying to seal them off shoot them down in justified murder for the protection of their own lives.  No agreement is possible with the people to ask them not to leave the island, and as we live in a statist society, there are no measures to prevent them from entering private property or going pretty much anywhere they want, because no one has the right to stop them – so instead ultimate imprisonment is their only choice. And of course all those people are ultimately evil and wouldn’t possibly agree to accept the quarantine and would just rush out to infect everyone they could possibly find… which could be argued to mean that they would be initiating violence against people and thus people would be justified in shooting them anyhow, blah blah.

So you’re saying it wouldn’t be immoral to shoot those people?  No one would even feel bad about it?  If it wasn’t immoral they would just shoot them without any emotion involved right?  They wouldn’t be making a decision for the greater good in a situation where they felt without choices?

This isn’t justification of coercion. It’s a lifeboat scenario where people are without choice of what to do and thrown into a situation that NEVER happens.

We could ban the concept of government by using lifeboat scenarios as well, except in the case of government, it generates lifeboat scenarios. We don’t have to make up absurd horse shit, we can just point at things that have happened.  What if the government starts droning it’s civilians? What if government agencies that are supposed to be protecting citizens really just start protecting big businesses and helping them exploit citizens?  What if the police who are there to protect the people in fact start beating and coercing them into doing the bidding of their masters who run the government?  What if the government starts social programs that never work but appear to have some alternate and unofficial function as the function sold to the public clearly isn’t being carried out?  What if the government got control of the media, and lied everyone into believing in an unjust war? What if the government got control of education, and forced everyone to send their kids to school by law, and taxed them for public education, so the majority of people can’t afford private education, and then indoctrinated them with government propaganda?

That’s a simplistic list of examples that even a moron could understand, and then of course disagree with because they are hopeless shackled to their worship of govt authority.

“O.o points at tin pot war lords and tribal war zones all over the planet

I could have sworn in that statement that you just listed the word lord. I mean, are we talking about anarchy, or just another strawman here?

You see, anarchy means without rulers. Not warlords, and especially not warlords who get handouts from other governments to keep their country broken and in just the state big business wants them in.

“Better still how about you show me a stable remotely significant/successful anarchy somewhere.”

Never read about one.  It’s an idea for society based on people not being coerced.  Kind of like that new fangled idea of there being no slavery that we finally succeeded at. But who will quarantine the zombies = but who will pick the cotton!

“There isn’t a “the” model. It’s just a catch all term for various theories about how disputes might be dealt with in the absence of government. But any kind of regulatory body is a form of government. How could any DRO function without coercion of the person deemed most at fault who refuses to agree?”

Seriously man, now it’s semantics?

And if you’re going to claim that you have some idea about the DRO model, then at least actually know something about it.  If you knew ANYTHING about it, you wouldn’t be asking how it would work without coercion or that it is a form of government. It’s not based on coercion. It’s based on agreeing to do something or giving someone access to extract it from you, and if you don’t meet your end of the contract you can be ostracized. Not coerced.  Telling someone you won’t do business with them or won’t let them use your facilities, or that they aren’t allowed on your property is not coercion.

It’s a little disingenuous to launch that semantics bullshit at me and then clearly not know a damn thing about DROs.

“How is that relevant? Conquest in a stateless society would be swift and bloodless. The most adept PR agent would be in charge almost instantly. The shape of the resulting society would depend almost entirely on this individual’s temperament.”

It’s relevant because you were talking about power in a vacuum.  How would the most adept PR agent be in charge almost instantly?  How would companies pay for war in a stateless society?

“O.o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Oh I’m sorry, I wasn’t asking you to define tea party. I know what the tea party is. I knew what it was when it got started, while it was evolving, and where it is now. I didn’t intend to ask you to define “tea party type”. I intended to ask you what you meant when you said such a thing.

“I already did, not that I expect you to actually click a link you presume to be in opposition, utterly consumed by choice supportive bias and the endowment effect as you are.”

Actually I was asking you to explain it, not send me a video.  If I ask you to explain something and you send me a video, it just tells me you aren’t full of shit.

I watched this video years ago.  I watched it again.  What is your argument?  Are you honestly trying to say that we are more at risk in a stateless society than a statist society of being guided by propaganda? And you’re calling it PR?

“Your ignorance of volition engineering is hilarious since you presume to defend anarchy. Have you ever even heard of Chomsky? He wrote this pretty popular book called “Manufacturing Consent” perhaps you should read it, and while you’re at it look up Edward Bernays and Yellow Journalism just for spice :)”

Yeah, because “volition engineering” is such a common term for propaganda.  And I just don’t know a damn thing about propaganda right?  You presume too much.

Dude seriously. Stop being a dick.  I’ve read a lot of Chomsky.  Did you actually read Manufacturing Consent?  Did you happen to get his message about government in it at all?

“Yes they are, and did you miss how they got that way?”

No I didn’t.  Lobbying, revolving door, and patents.

“You think they are going to give up that kind of power?”

Of course I don’t.  They have the government to keep them in power.

“You think people are going to boycott the only source of insulin?”
I wasn’t talking about big pharma. But I’m also not under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry would be anything like it is now under a stateless society.

“It gave rise to the very concept of a PsyOp. It’s a particularly effective route to power. One corrupt and skilled volition engineer is all it would take in a stateless society. And we have 177 billion dollar industry churning them out en masse.”

So you have clear ideas on how a stateless society would be composed? How about elaborating on what the goals and methods of indoctrinating the public with propaganda would take place in a stateless society?

How about explaining why it would be worse, or more dangerous than in a statist society?

“You don’t even know who your rulers are do you.”

Big business.  You can pick whatever ruling elite group you want, but it’s really just a bunch of big business.

“I respect your good intentions. But your energy is better spent on reform of disruptive technological advance.”

“What does democratizing bugs crawling around in lvl 4 labs mean?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratizing#Knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4

Yet again you aren’t able to answer a question but must use links instead.  So you’re point was to justify government because otherwise we are unable as a people who are not coerced by authority to understand how to intensely handle dangerous organisms?

“Uhh, for starters the entire suite of critical thinking skills, especially if you want your populace to be anything better than a fickle mob. How about the scientific method? How about a basic understanding of how to detect and define flaws in one’s thinking premises or logic? How about basic research skills so they can become aware enough of their surroundings to make informed contribution to policy discussion? etc etc”

Why do people need these skills to conduct themselves peacefully?  I’ve been around a lot of people for a lot of years who conduct themselves peacefully but don’t have these skills terribly developed. Oh you think it’s because they are terrified that government will punish them unless they are peaceful right? Not because they will be socially ostracized or because people really aren’t that bad.

If everyone is so illogically broken, how can we possibly be ok with them influencing government?  Or is it because we both know they don’t influence government at all because big votes don’t really matter, and even if they did matter, people are just indoctrinated by government propaganda and do what the government tells them anyhow?

So clearly the only justification for government here if everyone is so ignorant is a government that isn’t by consent of the governed.

“It takes WORK to be a free thinker. Indeed, that’s the greatest weapon tyranny ever had. The default stupidity of fresh humans. Did it never occur to you why mass was in latin for so long despite no one in the audience being able to speak it? Even now education is obviously not designed to enrich.”

Yeah that did occur to me, about 20 years ago.  Public education is mostly indoctrination.  The literacy rate is declining.  People get out of college with no idea of how to function in the work place, and no real marketable skills.

“O.o What planet do you live on? Ask half the people in this thread what they think about “entitlements.” Shit, ask Republican voters generally how they feel about helping the poor, the sick, the unemployed. Ask Ayn Rand fans.”

You are missing the point about caring about people.  The point is that we are good people even if we fucked up and allowed a government to exist. We want to help people by nature, or we would never have allowed government policy to perpetuate that claimed to help people for any reasons other than the desire to help people or not having a choice about ending that policy.  Why are you convinced no one would be helped without coercive government policy?  It doesn’t take entitlements to get help to the needy.  It just takes people helping people.  And it can be done without expanding and empowering an abusive murderous government.

“Pardon me for assuming you’ve done your homework. Ask questions if you want clarification. This is a big subject and I use a lot of short hand and even debating me at this level requires a heap of prior reading.”

Sorry man, I get your attempted explanation, but it’s horse shit. This statement “Put simply, the state would re-evolve in a most brutal fashion unless you are enforcing some kind of homogenizing principal that must be by definition even worse than government.” is unacceptably unexplained by claiming that someone should have done their homework.  If you want to make an insane argument such as you expected someone to have done their homework, the entire argument would be something more along the lines of:

Protectionism
no because of Austrian Economics
no because of a reversal of Polylogism
no because of the need for Socialism
no because of Austrian Economics
no because of protectionism

etc

“ I don’t consider it a flaw to not have exposure or understanding of these concepts, but it’s not my responsibility to tutor you. Though I am willing to try.”

It’s your responsibility to explain your arguments and not try to justify your lack of explaining with more actual TOTAL AVOIDANCE OF ELABORATION and links.  Otherwise you are making the almost same the argument as people who tell me I need to learn arabic and read islam in the original language.

“You’re so narrow. You realize the US is only ~5% of the population right? We’re on the way out in every measurable way. We are a degenerate culture by most every long term objective definition relative to our peers.”

Why do you think I’m narrow? The psychology and economics that describe the problems with the US fit all countries. My education is mostly aimed towards western civilization, but it doesn’t mean people in eastern civlization are aliens.  I don’t see how assuming that people in different cultures are in such contrast that we should enact polylogism.  People still have logical facilities.  At the core of what I’m speaking of is coercion, not high level deducted government policy driven by culture.  Do you think coercion is moral in some culture and not in others?

“Virtually all of it. Right now I’d like to eliminate all these people whining about entitlement because they want other people to share their life style.”

That is hilarious.  You want to eliminate all of the people who don’t want to coerce people and don’t want to be coerced, because you think they want to coerce this onto everyone. It doesn’t matter to you that they want to be able to more efficiently and thus effectively assist the needy, but to also try to build a society that wouldn’t incentivize and generate needy people the way government does.  Too bad you don’t spend a little bit of that time you spend on accusing people of this strawman instead of explaining to people why their ideas are wrong. And then of course when someone asks you to elaborate you either say you expect them to already know all your arguments or send links ← disingenuous and basically like wearing a badge that says Full Of Shit.

“Not everyone wants to be wage slaves or ants. I think the cultural inheritance of humanity entitles (oh noes I said the dreaded E word!) all humanity to a base line level of income.”

Ah, so you believe that everyone is entitled to an equal level of income?  You aren’t concerned with how this notion has always completely failed?

Do you realize that the more free the market, the lower the prices?

“That’s a great approach. There are others. Personally I plan to radically modify myself with the express aim of making myself more useful to my species. (I consider you all my family.)”

How about also aiming to prevent the idea that violence is an acceptable way to get things done, that children aren’t beat/abused/yelled at by their parents, that people take their kids out of public education, that people stop worshipping authority, and that people stop supporting coercion?  But I guess you wouldn’t do that because you believe in a benefit of coercion.

“Oh please. I’ve got a 130K word book out there, just because I didn’t go off on every tangent and explain every last bump in the road doesn’t mean my assertions are baseless. Again, excuse the piss out of me for assuming you’ve done your homework.”

Sorry man but that tactic is just more avoidance. You’ve had ample opportunity. You’ll just utilize avoidance in your next response as well.

“Tell that to all the people you’re cool with starving to death on the condition that no one wants to feed them. Your anarchic utopia smells to me like a lynch mob.”

I’ll make sure and tell every person in need I give cash to for the rest of my life how cool I am with them starving to death because I don’t believe coercion is moral.  I’m sure they will give a shit about all the links you use in the place of arguments as they enjoy their next several meals on me.  I’m sure they would totally agree with you that I should just keep funneling money through the government to help them, the same one that was letting them starve in the first place.

Your utopia claim is nonsense. Why are you accusing me of this?  Utopia isn’t what anarchists are looking for. They just don’t want to be coerced and don’t want to coerce others.  Utopia is what govt aims to do… oh you didn’t know that?  Govt is suppose to solve all the problems what regulation. And it has worked so well so many times right?

Anyway, I hope you find peace somewhere in your enjoyment of wanting people to starve to death as government takes everyone’s wealth, as government murders innocent people in multiple countries simultaneously, and as government grinds progress completely to a halt with regulation and patents. But seriously, keep appealing to emotion, keep accusing people who don’t believe in suffering and coercion of being evil and accusing them of being ok with people starving – cause that makes so much sense right?   I guess there is a peace somewhere in illogical babble for people like you who enjoy the proliferation of suffering and violence to get your way, but it’s just not for me.  Holding a gun to people’s heads and telling them where to spend there money just isn’t for me, but hey I really do believe you should try to pursue what you believe in, even if it’s morally corrupt and evil.

“…into a situation that NEVER happens.”

So that’s your real answer. You refuse to answer because the question being real is unlikely. (Is that how you deal with all game theory?) So it doesn’t matter what I say. You’ll just toss in probability as an excuse to avoid any hypothetical that falsifies your assertion(s ).“We could ban the concept of government by using lifeboat scenarios as well, except in the case of government, it generates lifeboat scenarios.”And I could just as easily counter it as you have by saying that such is improbable so I therefor don’t need to consider it.You’ve rendered your argument null by refusing to consider falsification scenarios of every stripe simply because they falsify your argument by way of an arbitrary probability threshold.

“It’s not based on coercion. It’s based on agreeing to do something or giving someone access to extract it from you, and if you don’t meet your end of the contract you can be ostracized. Not coerced.”

*facepalm*

And what happens when they are so angry at having been “ostracized” and having their resources “extracted” that they resort to violence to prevent it?

At some point the needs of the individual are out stripped by the needs of the group. Culture must address these situations. If a culture lacks policy to indicate when this is appropriate then that culture’s policy is incomplete and will encounter situations for which it does not have policy but which require policy for the culture to survive. It’s only a matter of time.

“…or that they aren’t allowed on your property is not coercion.”

And what if everyone tries to similarly ban them? (Like how we’ve ended up with a national de facto dress code?) You going to push them into the sea? Launch them into orbit? You’re just avoiding the answer.

By your logic starving them to death is not coercion. What you are talking about is prison or execution. Prison if there is any place they can go and execution if there isn’t.

(No reason to read further really, the rest is just decoration.)

(Starting from the beginning.)

“Yay! More blatant condescension to cover up a total lack of logic and knowledge of the subject matter.”

You’re clearly not very interested in your ideas being tested for veracity, though I’m just as much a fool for remotely expecting otherwise.

Such black and white thinking (agree me with/”total lack” of knowledge) is dangerous, in terms of unchecked exposure to fallacious thinking, and indicates a deficiency of critical thinking, as a conscious skill, being applied before statements are made.

You should consider that critical thinking can be done subconsciously. But it’s not a good idea to wholly trust your impressions even if they are correct the bulk of the time. This is where the self discipline critical thinking requires comes in.

You’re apparently not vetting your words for fallacies, thus I can only assume you’re not vetting your thoughts/conclusions/logic/premises either.

You’ve admitted you haven’t felt the need to expose yourself to the opposing evidence I presented last time. Finding a way to absolve yourself by blaming me doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t done the reading.

When you make it clear that you’re in “write only” mode. I might as well argue with a DVD. And I wouldn’t be bothering except that I am using you to check my own ideas and to elaborate on them.

“If “coercion” isn’t at issue, then why did you just say that you answered the question, then in the next sentence say that my question isn’t at issue?”

Metachat, and strawman. What I said was what I said in the context that I said it and I’m not going to fall for the trap of being prompted to endlessly repeat it in different ways so you can then pull those answers further out of context to create the appearance of contradiction to weaken my position without having to actually counter it.

“I didn’t ask you to justify cooperation”

I didn’t I was refuting the absurd notion that government is born of coercion. It’s behavior is in some sense defined by coercion but it’s definition is its purpose and that is capturing economies of scale and more importantly repressing behavior that while ethically legitimate at the individual scale, causes group destroying tragedy of the commons (TOC) type problems.

Just because you got an answer you didn’t expect, you think the answer is wrong, and you’re unwilling to explore any alternative.

“If government just allowed everyone to do whatever they wanted, it wouldn’t have any power to enforce anything…”

You seem pissed the coercion of the individual by the group is the price we pay for being able to exploit economies of scale and avoid TOC problems. Have you asked yourself what if it’s not a choice?

“This is where your type goes on and on about how evil people are and all the evil things they would do…”

You really don’t understand the TOC do you. It’s not about evil. It’s about diffusion of responsibility and scale. Wiki game theory.

Update: But yeah, people are pretty cold. http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

“so commonly utter failures”

Bull.

You, like all the rest of them, want to punish the poor for being poor, as if it’s a choice. You islanders are hilarious. You probably think the dinosaurs are all dead because they were too lazy to find food all of the sudden, they should take responsibility for having a sunlight based food chain. Slackers.

You have no concept of variable scalability. You think because something is true at one scale it’s true at all scales and you build your ethics (and hypothetical worlds) accordingly. They are as a result hopelessly flawed.

“The literacy rate is declining.”

I see 6 year olds with cell phones texting away and all of them are on facebook. You don’t mean literacy, you mean English standardized test scores, which is a different thing entirely. Besides you go on later to talk about education being optional with regard to responsible citizenship, so what do you care if literacy is falling?

“…because clearly the track record of government to solve it has been horrible.”

Our government hasn’t been given free rein to try. Even in FDR’s time the 1% of his day hired PR types to sabotage helping the poor.

http://vimeo.com/20861423

You would know that if you’d watch/read the stuff I linked but you won’t, you’re more comfy with your bogey men and exploitation complex.

“…but government is an inefficient and non innovative organization by design.”

And perhaps you should ask why, given that it’s still everywhere as opposed to anarchy. I’ve explained but you don’t want to hear it. You’re like the feminist who thinks disparity of pay can’t possibly be due to anything other than male conspiracy.

“Why are you accusing me of not wanting to care for other people?”

Because your concern for helping people is secondary to your concern for who gets to dictate terms. Your help is conditional. It is dependent on the satisfaction of your ego and your perception of having enough.

Also, rich people often never feel like they have enough, this is a neurological thing in some, if not all, cases. As a result, they don’t donate except when induced or forced. Advocating a system that places the well being of humans simply for being human secondary to your right to acquire and hold property is inherently exploitative. It literally puts your needs above the group, and the needs of the one do not outweigh the needs of the many.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html

“I give money to people in my extended community who are down on their luck, on hard times, crushed by medical debt, and so on.”

That’s ego, not charity. That such acts feed your ego makes you a good person, but that trait cannot be relied on as the sole remedy for people unable or even unwilling to “earn” income.

Updates:

http://underlore.com/one-possible-solution/

http://underlore.com/bait-and-switch/

You islanders talk a big game about freedom and choice but one freedom you damn sure don’t want for everyone is freedom from work.

Well reality permits freedom from work and I think after 200,000 years of brutal Darwinian struggle to the top of the food chain we have collectively earned it. I deserve it and you deserve it for being the great grand sons of the tribe that invented fire and the written word.

We win. If we consider it illegitimate to punish children for the deeds of their parents then why is it legitimate to reward them for them? There needs to be an inheritance cap. We need to eliminate dynasties, not encourage them. I don’t want to trade one Pharaoh for another.

“I’d give a lot more if it wasn’t for the money the government steals from me without my permission.”

I believe that. Honestly. But you don’t understand diminishing returns. You’d eventually stop. You’d eventually start blaming them and tell yourself “well they’ll just spend it on drugs” or “they’re just lazy and refuse to take responsibility” or “they don’t deserve it as much as I do” (or whatever) to keep your money.

(The phrase “Outrage Fatigue” comes to mind.)

Granted you’re trying to solve the root problem, and I’m willing to pretend your ideas would, but you’re just replacing one form of government with another. And the current 1% would be even deeper in the 1%.

Like it said in the documentary you’re scared to watch. “It’s not that the people are in charge but that the people’s desires are in charge.” That won’t change under a stateless system.

“…a high performance results driven charity.”

…would be motivated to perpetuate the problem for continued existence. Charity has to be managed by a multipurpose organization so it can survive actually solving some of the target problems. Otherwise it’s little more than a bilge pump strongly motivated to generally fail.

Think about drug companies. Do you honestly think the largest manufacturer of cancer treatments on the planet would fail to oppose internally the release of an outright cure for cancer?

“How many needy people have you given money to lately?”

None. I have zero income. People like you would have me starve to death because of how I was born or how submissive I’m not.

I’m neatly excluded because leftists are mad that I like the 2nd, rightists are mad that I want a cap on wealth and a UBI, and tea partiers, are mad that I see the usefulness of some shred of government while believing we all have responsibility towards our fellow man.

FYI I wasn’t always trapped in this room and I never once felt that whatever portion of my taxes paid for the poor was wasted.

Your self obsessions have ruined the world. I can’t go help anyone because it’s dog eat dog over the scraps of the 1% out there. The job market today is in effect a tide of starving slaves jockeying for a particular kind of whip.

Because you assholes have convinced each other that poverty is a choice and if only you can lash the poor with sufficiently harsh austerity and humiliations they’ll finally turn white and stop talking all funny.

“…is it really so important to you to repeat your appeal to emotion…”

So I should totally disregard the suffering of others like Rand’s psychopathic disciples? I was born with a conscience. (Not merely an ego temporarily stoked by the thrill of magnanimity.)

Did the linked video not overtly and clearly laud the danger of forcing people to ignore their conscience?

“The idea that people can’t be cared for without a coercive institution of violence to force everyone to care for people is a fallacy.”

I’m willing to stipulate that. I think diminishing returns would be a long term problem in a volition only system, but I could be wrong so I’m happy to pretend I am wrong there.

But the fact remains that an individualist model doesn’t address TOC problems. As the need for a DRO proves. (Though again a culture based on humiliation and exclusion isn’t coercive to you)

Update: Also I still don’t see a difference between a DRO and a democratic government since both the power to create and enforce policy, ostensibly by mutual consent. Let’s fix the DRO we’ve got. https://mayday.us/

“You are basically making the claim that everyone is too selfish and/or bad to want to care for other people.”

Not remotely. People as a whole absolutely will care for other people. That’s why we invented gov in the first place, but you refuse to see founders as white hats. And I don’t mean Washington. He wasn’t a founder, he was a rich brit who didn’t like paying taxes. I mean like the tribal elder who first forced peace with his neighbor creating an ally versus starvation, predators, and the cold.

“My position is that the government inevitably leads to not only the empowerment of evil people but to the existence of evil people.”

Depending on how you define evil, sure. But the fact remains it solves problems nothing else can solve. If anarchy had a solution to TOC problems it would be a game theory Nobel prize. As it stands the best we’ve got is the Nash Equilibrium which assumes homogeneous (in the sense of awareness and critical self control) players. The housing bubble proves awareness of players is insufficient. There will always be people willing to exploit the group to death. This is another reason for a cap on both wealth and poverty, one to pay for the other. A water cycle. We need evaporation and rain.

“But if it wasn’t for government, no one would use the central banks when they realized how evil they are.”

Says the camp that blames the housing bubble on irresponsible home owners who got what they deserved. Your ignorance of scale (and finance) is showing again.

What do you think stopped the banks from getting too big to fail? Regulation. Your culture would lack it and it would end up with the same monopolistic 1% we’re dealing with only you would lack the authority to regulate.

Regardless of what you believe, it is possible to defraud an entire economy while still playing by the rules, especially if your profits can be turned to manipulating the rules.

“You know, how people in political power get the same kind of dopamine fueled reward response as someone using cocaine?”

Just like you get it from being charitable. Yes.

“And the kind of people who seek this out are people with a suppressed reward response which is generally a result of a stressed mother pre-birth and abuse after birth?”

Well causes of such brain states are not fully understood, but yes. I’m also aware of the rise of psychopathy. How a lack of conscience is utterly adaptive in today’s economy and political landscape and how easy it is to exploit the language of personal responsibility to charismatically mask that pathology. You’ve been taken in.

” And that abusing power will increase the dopamine response even further?”

Yes, psychopathy coupled with sadism means cruelty and risk seeking is the only way they feel anything. The so called “dark triad.” I’d give you a link but you hate reading.

But then again future readers may not..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

“…keeps you a broken abused person, who will teach this to your children, who will then teach it to theirs.”

But your camp considers children property just as much. Just get Alex Jones on a spanking rant to get a clear example of that. Your camp routinely speaks about parenting rights as if they are property rights. The rights of the child don’t exist on your side.

This is where NO ONE agrees with me. I’m the one person in the room, always, that wants kids to be people from the start and society to be structured in such a way as it is possible to have one law which applies to both children and adults while respecting the rights and realities of both.

Children’s Suffrage

“They’re the arguments everyone makes, when they are new to the subject.”

I wasn’t making the argument you think I was, I made the argument I made and you see it as the other because you refuse to critically examine your view. You assume because it contains elements of the argument with which you are familiar it therefor must be the argument with which you are familiar, by virtue of my disagreement with you and your black and white thinking.

You don’t see the difference because frankly you’re a poor critical thinker. (That really isn’t meant as an insult I just think it’s a fact, like I’m poor at remembering names and dates.) You realize the high priority of the issues in question and thus think checking what you feel to be right is a waste of precious time.

Rather than check your answer you move on to the next problem because we are drowning in problems. I completely understand. And I don’t blame you in the sense that I think you’re a “bad person” for this. I just think you’re dangerous because of it.

A half truth is an order of magnitude more of a problem than a complete lie.

“…more efficient causes…”

You’re trying to drag down social policy to the individual scale where specialists dominate. You think a purpose built charity is going to be better in all cases than a group multi tasked effort because an individual specialist is better than an individual generalist, but groups don’t have such limits. They can be good at everything. But again you ignore the TOC because at that scale the charity contains a TOC.

It has to exist to solve the problem, but if it solved the problem it could not exist. That’s why nothing ever gets done. When was the last time a drug company CURED something? Not developed a treatment for. Cured. Polio? And that wasn’t even a company.

Jesus man dentists are still using drills and glue. You ever wonder why? But I presume you blame government interference, not profit motive. And until we get rid of government the argument is unfalsifiable. So it’s win/tie.

You’ll always have something to blame, and so will I till one of us gets total authority to re-write society, and until then those capable of playing both sides against the middle will win. And thus the glory of the two party system.

The Alternative Vote Explained (A great solution to that problem.)

Sadly, seeing the truth doesn’t mean having the ability to change it. I can find no solution because of the TOC problem other than dragging the scale of the problem down either by homogenizing all citizens (left) or advocating social Darwinist autocracy. (right/you)

“…with no incentive to do their job…”

Incentive is in fact detrimental to the solution of complex problems. That’s another more subtle TOC.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
(another video you won’t watch)

“You haven’t given any argument yet.”

Yes I have, you’ve just assumed they were synonymous with previously heard arguments and dismissed them out of hand (which is why you feel justified in not exploring my links) you think it’ll just be same ol same ol, and it might well be in part, but again the problem is scale. I’m talking about the whole, not the part.

“Like I said, where is a single example of an anarchy?”

Like I said, *points at tin pot war lords and tribal war zones all over the planet.* What do you call it when a previously autocratic setting suddenly loses its autocrat? Anarchy. They happen and implode constantly like pistol shrimp air bubbles. They are inherently unstable. That’s why a power vacuum is synonymous with instability.

If anarchy was more adaptive than government that’s what we’d have. What we don’t have is proof of what works. We don’t have cubic eyes and tripedal creatures for similar reasons but you refuse to even think about that. Instead you rattle off counter pressures at individual scale making the implication that the reason anarchy doesn’t exist at the scale above is because of the individual pressures. In short you refuse to explore the possibility that anarchy simply can’t exist at the scale you’re suggesting because it can exist at the scale below.

Not All Things Are Scalable! Anarchy is obviously one of those things. All I need do is look around for proof. It’s like people born with their heart outside their chest. Yes that happens, and yes people can live that way but we don’t have a whole ethnicity with that trait because it’s not adaptive. It works at the individual scale, but it can’t work at the scale above. You keep looking at it through the microscope of politicality when you need to hop in the space craft of game theory and look at it from orbit.

“I mean, no one would have made the mistake you are trying to suggest, so seriously, don’t waste my time.”

You did. You said repeatedly that government is founded on coercion. But you weren’t going far enough back. It began in the ice age when environmental pressure coerced (heh) humanity to choose between cooperation or extinction.

” Since the inception of government people have been coerced by the ruling power.”

And since before government people have been coerced by the consequences of the physical constants. (Of which the laws of game theory are an extension, the TOC being but one facet of one example.)

Update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7Z95cqZx0

“The smallest govt in history became the biggest govt in history.”

No, the smallest possible government is a single charismatic autocrat. The leap from kingship to democracy is by definition a leap in scale and size.

“I said coercion is immoral.”

A hurricane has no moral gradient. (Big coal/oil not withstanding.) Coercion of some sort is required to solve TOC issues for a non-homogeneous population, that’s not conspiracy, it’s simply physical fact. If you can solve that problem a Nobel in mathematics awaits you.

“Being coerced is the foundation of the worst societies and allows less oppressive societies to escalate into the most oppressive.”

Complain to the manufacturer. I’d rather we eliminate the entire pain based food chain. And I think we can, but it will mean the de facto extinction of humanity as it currently is. :/

http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

(More stuff you assume you already know the content of by a skimming glance at best.)

” It’s also the one that is oppressing most of the people in my circles and the one that we need to deal directly against.”

Now you’re conflating all gov with current US gov. I’m rabidly opposed to 90% of us gov policy. But the difference is I don’t knee jerk my way from there into anarchy. Baby/Bathwater

Update: http://underlore.com/if-not-now-when/

“Saying “initiating violence against people to force them against their will is immoral” is a blanket statement?”

No but “Coercion is immoral” is. Do you define coercion as requiring violence? (Shockingly, yes.) Do you then not consider fines/humiliation/etc coercive?

(You actually don’t, I didn’t know that when I typed that question.)

“So of course the infected people in this lifeboat scenario disagree with the quarantine and refuse to be sealed off.”

It’s my hypothetical so yes. I can accomplish that by saying a symptom of the illness is a desire to escape or a conviction that the infected isn’t infected.

There are scores of pathogens that erode judgment. (Some among the insects are disturbingly specific. Such as Ophiocordyceps unilateralis.)

“So the people trying to seal them off shoot them down in justified murder for the protection of their own lives.”

I’m content to give them tranquillizer darts and fences and all sorts of stuff as first lines of defense but the last line is still a choice. Kill one to save two. Sometimes reality doesn’t play fair. And if you’re going to make policy for all humanity you have to address these rare situations. Especially if you’re going to do it using absolute black and white statements.

“No agreement is possible with the people to ask them not to leave the island, and as we live in a statist society, there are no measures to prevent them from entering private property or going pretty much anywhere they want, because no one has the right to stop them – so instead ultimate imprisonment is their only choice.”

You’re inventing your own hypothetical, not addressing mine.

You’re (perhaps ironically) Tony Starking it “I’d just cut the wire.” Valid usually and one should always look for such obviating solutions, but also point missing. Sometimes reality won’t let you cut the wire. That’s the point of a hypothetical, to test an idea under controlled conditions.

Which again is what game theory is. Tony and you are breaking the rules of the game to show that the game can be won. (Kirk did that also. But that lesson is intended to demonstrate sometimes there is no winning sometimes there is only minimized loss.)

“So you’re saying it wouldn’t be immoral to shoot those people?”

I think it’s possible that life presents us with situations where a life must be taken to save other lives yes. As a macroscopic predator you do it every day, you just find a way to make plants, animals, and bacteria, “not count” or do you live on minerals and sunlight?

Similarly however I think it’s perfectly in your right to pass the buck. To make someone else pull the trigger. That’s what soldiers are for in an uncorrupted culture. Those willing to take on a life and death burden for the good of the group.

Sin eaters.

“No one would even feel bad about it?”

Of course they’d feel bad. Plenty of people feel awful despite having had no alternatives. My mom was an ER nurse, I know all about feeling bad about atrocious situations.

(See top of response.)

“What if…(etc)”

You’re changing topics. I already said the USG is corrupt and unjust, those aren’t attacks on the validity of government itself, merely the validity of this one.

“Never read about one.  It’s an idea for society based on people not being coerced.  Kind of like that new fangled idea…”

New? It’s the default condition. Government is newer and it’s prehistoric.

“If you knew ANYTHING about it, you wouldn’t be asking how it would work without coercion or that it is a form of government.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.

If it’s so easy then fire off the answer.

DRO models are orders of magnitude more equitable than government solutions, I’ll stipulate. But without coercion they are redundant/incomplete/incompetent and with coercion they are equivalent to good government.

How would a DRO solve disputes with implacable participants without coercion?

Let me guess, that’s too far below your probability threshold to consider.

“It’s a little disingenuous to launch that semantics bullshit at me and then clearly not know a damn thing about DROs.”

Says the guy who redefines coercion arbitrarily and flippantly refuses to consider hypotheticals.

“I intended to ask you what you meant when you said such a thing.”

I know. You were being a smart ass. Not having asked your real question (if it even was a question as opposed to a statement) I’m not going to speculate.

“Actually I was asking you to explain it, not send me a video.”

I feel no pressing obligation to duplicate effort just because you’re intellectually lazy/callow. If you don’t want the answer, fine. It’s there for future readers.

“Are you honestly trying to say that we are more at risk in a stateless society than a statist society of being guided by propaganda?”

Absolutely. The state as a result of it’s own lust for power is a check on profit motivated PR, (Though granted it funds and develops power motivated PR of it’s own.) One less check improves it’s power.

A stateless society would have less PR, but that only means the PR that remains would be the only player.

Human society is now a tripod, composed of religions, governments, and corporations. I call this arrangement “The Company” for short. They have historically been checks against each other to one degree or another. Sometimes they team up to attack the third.

Eliminating one of them entirely is risky if not impossible.

“Did you happen to get his message about government in it at all?”

Yes, but I took it as a given that his anarcho syndicalism would in goal ultra minimize coercion not attempt to eliminate it. His model is far more workable than yours with regard to violence but the PR argument stands against both your models.

He himself elaborated on the dangers of the propaganda model true, but he fails to adequately address it in my mind, instead calling for unrealistic or at least in some sense oppressive homogenization via education of the population by encouraging what he calls “intellectual self defense” which makes the false assumption that awareness of PR makes one immune to PR.

I say resistant yes, but not immune. I think any human mind is susceptible to PR for the same reason optical illusions work despite our awareness. They don’t apply to those areas of the brain.

PR is aimed at the limbic system, not the neocortex. Thus you can no more “intellectually defend” yourself from it than you can from optical illusions because they are aimed at the visual cortex. Your only hope is avoidance or a recognition and ban, but then you’d have to prove that stealth PR isn’t possible, or admit that stealth PR is what would come to dominate his model.

The man is a genius but he’s also a specialist. He’s missed things. He’s working on what is, and not getting caught up in what would be, also, he has a fair point, I mean his system, even if weak as I’ve explained would be better than what we have now.

I think yours would actually be worse because of what would rapidly follow it.

Example: Depressions defund governments, and governments fall. What follows are typically worse, though I’ll admit I know of no instance in history of a government being defunded while its populace remains funded. (As would happen if we all just stopped paying taxes.)

I strongly suspect any government would just begin taking what it wanted and civil war would result. Which probably means the effect has happened and I just missed the cause.

“No I didn’t.  Lobbying, revolving door, and patents. | They have the government to keep them in power.”

O.o

The fact that they make drugs has nothing to do with it? Insulin is valuable because of patents? Cocaine is popular because of lobbying?

What about the fact that drugs are just chemicals and these companies can make whatever chemical they like? Like say Sarin or VX?

“How about elaborating on what the goals and methods of indoctrinating the public with propaganda would take place in a stateless society?”

How about you tell me which of Edward Bernays’s techniques wouldn’t work in a stateless society? Did the government force people to go to the world’s fair and visit “democracity”? Did he force women to suddenly start smoking? No. He manipulated their unconscious. And unless your model includes some radical brain augmentation/alteration any PR guru in a stateless setting would have 200,000 years of human evolutionary baggage to work with.

“How about explaining why it would be worse, or more dangerous than in a statist society?”

As I said the state is a check on the profit motive of companies, to a limited degree because it sees them as potential rivals for power. It cares about power. Your model would be ruled by corporations and religion. Sure they wouldn’t have the government to squash competition for them but they wouldn’t need it either.

You’d still have wage slaves and a ruling class of PR types, clergy, and land owners. Indeed your stateless society would rapidly turn into a kind of feudalism. Commerce and religion would be the two halves of The Company, as opposed to the three parts we have now. Gov/church/corporation.

“You can pick whatever ruling elite group you want, but it’s really just a bunch of big business.”

Nope. They are just the ones given the proceeds of power. The ones in power are the influence peddlers, the PR men, the volition engineers. That the 1% believes they own the PR men is doubtless, so in a sense big business is in charge granted. And sure individual PR men can be killed and replaced if they get too uppity. But as a class PR men are indispensable because of the power they wield.

“Yet again you aren’t able to answer a question but must use links instead.”

O.o Yeah because you refuse to read I’m the lazy one. I spent all day on this reply knowing full well you probably won’t even read it all the way through, let alone follow the links.

“So you’re (sic)point was to justify government because otherwise we are unable as a people who are not coerced by authority to understand how to intensely(what?) handle dangerous organisms?”

No my point is how does your culture handle ebola? It has two choices. Coercion or destruction. Coercion is the wise move. Then we can study it and be ready for it. But your model lacks that ability.

Or are you seriously going to let just whoever wants (and can pay for) have a sample? Plagues are a special case weapon’s class for a reason. It’s a wmd that can be placed in a pocket. How would your society deal with a 12 monkeys scenario? Oh right, too unlikely, must not consider. My bad.

“Why do people need these skills to conduct themselves peacefully?”

So now we know which PR men would run your culture. Religion would come to utterly dominate the uneducated, and encourage them to out reproduce competition.

Granted education can’t make one immune to PR but lack of knowledge definitely makes one more susceptible to it.

“If everyone is so illogically broken, how can we possibly be ok with them influencing government?”

We’re not, even in this culture people for the most part don’t take people with severe mental illnesses to vote, prisoners can’t vote, and children can’t vote.

Though there are some valid and troubling arguments against democracy generally.

“People get out of college with no idea of how to function in the work place, and no real marketable skills.”

That’s because business adapts faster to reality than college curricula, and their product’s value isn’t tied to usefulness. They sell entrance cards.

And the pool of needed skills is shrinking due to exponential technology increase scaling up both the power of automation and the complexity of demand.

Annihilating government won’t change that. Whatever society inherits the earth if it allows technological advancement will face mass unemployment or mass exodus.

What happens when the first major employer corporation replaces all human employees with humanoid androids but doesn’t change prices any?

You’re creating a society that will come to be dominated by two classes, the obscenely wealthy/powerful and the contractually/spiritually enslaved. And the obscenely wealthy of this society are the ones penning your arguments.

“…or we would never have allowed government policy to perpetuate…”

You refuse to accept the origins of government. We don’t tolerate it for those reasons alone.

“Why are you convinced no one would be helped without coercive government policy?”

Well since you don’t include contractual obligation obtained via humiliation/starvation to be coercive then I guess I don’t. Your culture would eventually implement a de facto tax. Possibly a literal social contract that consumers would force producers and corporations to sign as a condition of not being boycotted. Assuming the target corporation didn’t have a monopoly on some critical good or service or was otherwise boycott-proof.

“It just takes people helping people.  And it can be done without expanding and empowering an abusive murderous government.”

That’s fair.

“…is unacceptably unexplained by claiming that someone should have done their homework.”

You custom-defined coercion. In this sense your culture can work because you’ll ostracize (Isolate? Starve?) deviants until the culture is homogeneous.

“It’s your responsibility to explain your arguments…”

No it isn’t. You just said a person doesn’t need to be critically educated to act peaceably. Playing by your rules I have no responsibility to you at all.

Just as you don’t have the responsibility to read my links and watch my videos. Which incidentally is why I feel no over powering urge to drag you to water when evidence suggests you’re not going to drink anyway.

“Otherwise you are making the almost same the argument as people who tell me I need to learn arabic and read islam in the original language.”

I wouldn’t know but I do know language changes context and context alters meaning. Not all concepts can be translated and expressed in all languages. Perhaps your potential unawareness of that fact is related to your manifest unawareness of the limits of scale?

“Why do you think I’m narrow?”

Because you keep conflating government and United States government.

“That is hilarious.”

Indeed. Fortunately that’s not my position. Straw man, again.

“Ah, so you believe that everyone is entitled to an equal level of income?”

Not an equal level, but enough at minimum to live quietly and peacefully so that participation in society is a real choice. That islanders never can get behind that idea is why I see them as enemies of freedom. What do I care who’s in charge if both sides want to force me to work?

If it’s a choice between slavers who feed me and slavers who make me gamble and beg for it who ultimately have no problem starving me to death, who do you think I’ll pick?

You people have no sense of community. You’re clannish at best. That’s a poor poor substitute.

“You aren’t concerned with how this notion has always completely failed?”

I don’t think rain ruins the water cycle, no. The 1% are creating a global wealth drought. And they already have everything they want. They have nothing left to spend it on. It has to be taken from them. They are aristocrats. We’ll either be starved to the point of killing them, French revolution style, or the people will attempt in some way to force them to share systemically and they’ll wisely submit to our judgment, otherwise they’ll refuse and again, civil war.

There are few alternative outcomes, and fewer still that have a shred of desirability for the whole of humanity.

“Do you realize that the more free the market, the lower the prices?”

Until someone gets a monopoly. You realize there are sources of monopoly other than government edict right?

“But I guess you wouldn’t do that because you believe in a benefit of coercion.”

I’ve said for years if you’re too slow to outwit a child you shouldn’t have had one. My position on children I already explained. To me they are little people. No culture on earth honestly treats them this way.

For some idea of how I would handle children as a culture, imagine treating them like adults with regenerative brain conditions. Their desires should be as important as adults. And “how they turn out” should be judged by them in some way.

http://underlore.com/new-school/

“You’ll just utilize avoidance in your next response as well.”

Says the guy as an excuse for avoiding links.

“I’ll make sure and tell every person in need I give cash to for the rest of my life how cool I am with them starving to death because I don’t believe coercion is moral.”

Be sure to follow it up with how you think humiliation isn’t coercion. Because as all islanders know, poor people have no right to dignity.

“They just don’t want to be coerced and don’t want to coerce others.”

And if a workable society could be made that indulges that want it would be called utopian.

“as government takes everyone’s wealth”

LMFAO

Did you not notice them ALL being neck deep in debt while the 1% is entirely corporate?

God you people are such literal tools.

I suppose all of Greece just suddenly got lazy and it’s the government that bankrupted the people. It had nothing to do with global banks.

“…as government murders innocent people in multiple countries simultaneously”

To secure rights for profit motivated big business.

“…government grinds progress completely to a halt with regulation and patents.”

To secure antiquated business models for big business.

“…who don’t believe in suffering and coercion”

Says the guy who doesn’t believe forced starvation and humiliation are coercive…

” Holding a gun to people’s heads and telling them where to spend there money just isn’t for me”

But holding their food and telling them what to sign is.

P.S. I won’t be answering you again with such completeness. So if you fire off another wall of text, enjoy the last word.I gave you your chance I now know your problem. You take entirely too much time.

+Brandon Sergent If you want to try to get around to actually having a conversation, that’s fine. But you escalated this thread from simple question and answer to a list of arguments that required walls of text in response.“So that’s your real answer. You refuse to answer because the question being real is unlikely. (Is that how you deal with all game theory?)”

“So it doesn’t matter what I say. You’ll just toss in probability as an excuse to avoid any hypothetical that falsifies your assertion.”

I asked you to justify coercion. You gave me a lifeboat scenario defined on your terms and I pointed out the problem with people resorting to lifeboat scenarios and now you are accusing me of not accepting any argument.  You didn’t bother to actually argue with what I said in response.

Back to your silly lifeboat scenario:

Why is it moral to coerce the people in the lifeboat scenario?  Do you not see that people are still being immoral?  Do you think the people who are infected still are living being with choices and desires and so on? That coercing them is still violating them?  If all the other people in the geographic region are convinced that they are nothing but walking death, those people are going to react, of course, but it doesn’t mean they find their reaction moral – it just means they find it necessary for survival.

Why is this concept so difficult for you? You haven’t even come close to explaining how coercion is moral. All you’ve done is offer a LIFEBOAT SCENARIO where people would have to make a really hard decision about how to act on their own survival and decide to act immorally.

If you truly believe coercion is moral, that was the question after all, not is there a case ever that coercion would be something that people would be compelled to do, how about describing a scenario that actually DOES HAPPEN INSTEAD OF A SCENARIO THAT MUST BE IMAGINED BY PEOPLE WITHOUT AN ARGUMENT?

Can you think of one?

If you can’t here are a few:

Is it moral to force drug users to go to prison?
Is theft moral?
Is it moral to take other peoples money against their will or else you imprison them?
Is it moral to shoot someone if they refuse to let you take them to prison?
Is rape moral?
Is it moral to take someones children away from them if they refuse to put them through school?
Is it moral to force people to pay for road work on roads they don’t drive?
Is it moral to force people to pay for debts that were created before they were born?
Is it moral to murder someone because they are developing nuclear weapons?

And seriously man:
Is it moral to steal food to survive if they refuse to give you any?

My argument is intact. You aren’t even arguing whether or not coercion is moral.

“And I could just as easily counter it as you have by saying that such is improbable so I therefor don’t need to consider it.”

But I literally listed things that government has done. Not that I would be surprised if you ignored every bad thing government has ever done out of your worship of authority and your need to subjugate yourself to a ruler.

“You’ve rendered your argument null by refusing to consider falsification scenarios of every stripe simply because they falsify your argument by way of an arbitrary probability threshold.”

No, I addressed the problem with lifeboat scenario arguments.  You displayed your argument was empty and illogical by resorting to specifically thinking up a situation that never happens in attempt to justify something that already has offered an entire history full of examples in a constant and never ending stream.  If you could actually have thought up a reasonable example, why would it be something so perposterous and unlikely?  And to really get down to the point, your example wasn’t an arugment for coercion being moral.  It was an example where people act immorally to survive.  So you are still completely wrong and completely avoiding the argument.

“And what happens when they are so angry at having been “ostracized” and having their resources “extracted” that they resort to violence to pre6

Man your facepalm and O.o shit makes you look like a fucking retard.  I get it that you think it’s cute and condescending, but when you come back with something so illogically embarrassing, it just makes you look even more stupid.

What the hell do you think happens when someone tries to coerce someones?  People defend themselves. Do you honestly feel good about this insane argument you are using?  And don’t try and redefine what I explained in some silly ass horse shit that you like arguing against yourself with in one strawman after another.  If people agree to give someone access to their bank account in the event of a dispute, or if someone literally hands over money up front for a contract that will be used in the event of a dispute, they will have their funds extracted.

“At some point the needs of the individual are out stripped by the needs of the group. Culture must address these situations. If a culture lacks policy to indicate when this is appropriate then that culture’s policy is incomplete and will encounter situations for which it does not have policy but which require policy for the culture to survive. It’s only a matter of time.”

How about naming one that is moral?  Your plague lifeboat scenario is still immoral.  And really, you don’t have to elevate something to collectivism to try to justify coercion. 1 person deciding another person’s land belongs to him because he thinks he has a better use for it, is immoral. 100,000 people deciding 1 person’s land belongs to them collectively because they think they have a better use for it, is immoral.  Collectives are still individuals and it’s individuals that act. Some divine worth is not granted to them because they collected.  What if it were 100,000 people taking 100 peoples land?  Or, 50,000 peoples land?  What if those 100,000 peoples owned 100,000,000 time the amount of land they were stealing already?  And you accuse me of arbitrary?  Collectivism is not a wholesale justification for coercion.  Where does this data set converge so we can know precisely how many people it takes to justify taking peoples land?  Or do you just collectively take it 1 person at a time so it’s somehow moral?

So there was an examplem, taking peoples land.  See how common and historically repetitive it is? Now you try. Take your time.

“And what if everyone tries to similarly ban then? (Like how we’ve ended up with a national de facto dress code?) You going to push them into the sea? Launch them into orbit? You’re just avoiding the answer.”

No I don’t have any problems with how people dress. We also have a government enforced dress code.  Want to run around naked? Get kidnapped by the police.  Anyway, I don’t require people to dress a certain way, but since you brought it up, dress code is something almost entirely managed by social ostracism in an anarchistic way without government influence. Do you really think we’d be overrun by people running around naked if it wasn’t for the government?

If people wanted to dress any way they wanted on their property what business is it of mine? If they’re on my property I probably wouldn’t really mind either but considering this really isn’t a problem anyhow, why would it be a problem in a stateless society where people aren’t coerced by rulers?  Oh are you literally saying that without the fear of violence everyone would dress improperly?

Next stupid ass question?

“By your logic starving them to death is not coercion. What you are talking about is prison or execution. Prison if there is anyplace they can go and execution if there isn’t.”

Of course by “my logic” I don’t consider withholding my property to be coercion, because it’s not “my logic”, it’s what those words mean.  If someone starves to death because I didn’t want to give them my property, it’s not coercion. That isn’t the word coercion. If I initiate violence against them, tie them to a tree, and prevent them from seeking food <- that is coercion.  The problem in your scenario is morality, not coercion.  Morality and coercion are not synonymous.  Would I starve someone to death? Of course not.  If someone attacked my family with intent of murdering them, would I refuse to let them on my property or refuse to share my property with them? Definitely. If someone broke into my property to steal food from me so they could survive, would I starve them to death? Of course not. I’d more likely feed them and try to help them get on their feet and on with their life.

I would also support an organization that aims to rehabilitate criminals. Not just create a threat of violence and think they can help society somehow, but literally try to guide criminals into becoming better people. So if they are assaulting people in my community, they can either face the consequences of business not being willing to do business with violent criminals, join our rehabilitation program where they will be fed, sheltered, and hopefully reformed, or they can either leave the community or keep hoping someone will throw scraps to violent criminals.  Why someone be entitled to access to other peoples property including feeding and sheltering without any say so of the other people?

Another concept you need to get through you head is that taking away peoples choices takes away peoples ability to develop ethically about those choices. So you really have a society full of people who didn’t arrive somewhere ethically, but just weren’t given a choice, so really don’t understand the concept and execution of ethics on those issues.

Why would I want someone to starve to death?  Even someone who does something really really bad. I’m under the impression that people do bad things for specific reasons. One being they are incentivized to do really bad things, for example, all the benefit the government has created out of criminal activity, you know, like the drug business.  Another reason being that people are mentally ill, had abusive childhoods, either are literally broken mentally or aren’t capable of functioning in society for one reason or another.  Why would you think I’d be so heartless as to want these people to just die?

“You’ve admitted you haven’t felt the need to exposure yourself to the opposing evidence I presented last time. Finding a way to absolve yourself by blaming me doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t done the reading.”

I never said anything even close to that.  What did you interpret to get the idea that I made that claim?

It looks like we aren’t even having the same discussion here if you can making such a delusional accusation.

“When you make it clear that you’re in “write only” mode. I might as well argue with a DVD. And I wouldn’t be bothering except that I am using you to check my own ideas and to elaborate on them.”

Projection.

“Metachat, and strawman. What I said was what I said in the context that I said it and I’m not going to fall for the trap of being prompted to endlessly repeat it in different ways so you can then pull those answers further out of context to create the appearance of contradiction to weaken my position without having to actually counter it.”

You haven’t repeated it a single time, you’ve only avoided it.  Saying that the exact thing that I asked isn’t the question isn’t a valid argument for not answering the question.  But I don’t really think you avoided it because you can’t deal with it, I just think you refuse to process it.

“I didn’t I was refuting the absurd notion that government is born of coercion. It’s behavior is in some sense defined by coercion but it’s definition is its purpose and that is capturing economies of scale and more importantly repressing behavior that while ethically legitimate at the individual scale, causes group destroying tragedy of the commons (TOC) type problems.”

Without coercion, who would follow the rules?
If coercion is involved, how are people free to make ethical decisions?
Why do you think government leads to crimes against humanity and unethical outcomes?
Also, I recommend reading a little on the fallacy/myth of the tragedy of the commons.  It’s an economic fallacy that has been repeatedly refuted, yet repeated by people who are still under the impression that classical and keynesian economics are sound – regardless of keynesian economists being consistently wrong in their predictions and the perpetual justification of oppressive government policy being the same fallacious economics.  Perhaps looking at a failed government program and analyzing the theory that justified it could be useful, you think?

Let’s discuss a tragedy of the commons scenario.  Should we just stick to one of the common ones, or would you prefer to muddle this with some massive economies of scale misinterpretation? Well of course you would, but I guess we’ll get to that later if you actually provide an example that justifies your economies of scale fixation.

Sheep farmers who all have farms that surround an unowned plot of land and they let their sheep graze it.

One solution to this classical problem is that the farmers divide the land equally.  They completely enclose it after all, it’s not as if someone else is going to make use of it without extensive policy, right?  So why not divide it equally amongst themselves? After all, if they’re willing to declare it is public property shared by each other, why not just slice it up equally?  Tragedy of the commons averted.  If it is made public property then the piles of regulation, policing, enforcement, and trial are going to be needed to make sure no one is over grazing. And of course being public property, someone is going to try to take advantage of the potential free access and try to over graze it. They’re entitled to it at least to some extent after all.

But if it was private property, people are incentivized to defend their property, or to at least sell usage of it to someone else.  How could this possibly be more inefficient than trying to enforce equal sharing to it?

What if some of the farmers do a great job of handling grazing and fertility, and the other farmers just go at it haphazard and the public land is ruined because of the irresponsible? Now all of the public land is ruined, and not just the land that the irresponsible farmers are in control of.  Now not just the unskilled farmers will lose production, but all of the farmers.  And all of the farmers absorb the lack of performance, and the economy deals with a lack of product.

And we all know that public land and resources are commonly wasted in the hands of government don’t we?

Anyway, so the argument against private property here is to say something along the lines, but who will decide who owns the land?  Well, if no one already claims it, whoever stakes a claim to it, works it, and protects it, would own it, yes?  If other people disagree, then they would need to work it out.  Building a government to keep the land from being overused doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do really does it? After all, the government is one of the most inefficient and extreme resource consumers on the planet.  The govt literally generates problems of the commons.  Basically, I’m suggesting the govt is the ultimate manifestation of the problem of the commons.

Solving a resource issue still comes down to either a coercive or voluntary solution.  Statists, that is to say, people so enthralled with the state and justifying its existence are convinced that ONLY coercive solutions can solve whatever problems they’ve chose to use to justify the state.  Other than being illogical, it’s generally just circular reasoning.  You and people with your ideologies don’t even seem interested in TRYING to think of voluntary solutions to problems, and coming up with a way that society doesn’t have to be based on coercing people.  It’s clear that you have absolutely no interest in trying to figure out a way to build a society that doesn’t initiate violence against people because you don’t even realize that coercion is immoral.  Oh wait I forgot, it’s moral to you because magically a minority of plague victims are ok to initiate violence against, imprison, and murder, right?  So government is justified to you based on that logic… What if the plague victims were the majority and wanted to live out their last days the bet they could, so they decided to imprison the non-infected before they try to stop them, or just go out and infect them?  That would be moral right because they are the majority?  In a 3 people moral situation, 1 person is all it takes to decide what is moral and immoral, by your logic. And as soon as someone changes their mind and shifts their position to create a new majority, that is the new moral path, by your logic.

Maybe you need to spend a little time on the concept that maybe society doesn’t have to be coercive.  Let me put it another way. If coercion is involved, then the room for good intentions are gone.  People who don’t have a choice how to act without being MURDERED BY THE FUCKING POLICE are not people acting ethically.  In the place of an actual argument, you could just keep falsely accusing me and other people of desiring the suffering and starvation of people (even though it just makes you sound like a moron with too much pride to admit how stupid your argument is so you keep repeating this false claim), instead of realizing the fact that we want to make a better future without so much starvation, homelessness, institutionalized violence, impeding of human progress, empowerment of evil people through the oppressive mechanisms of government, and the best future we can figure out how to make as it’s clear coercion isn’t fixing the problems.  Or, you could think about the possible benefit to figure out a society not sustained by violence yourself instead of coming up with one illogical justification after another to try and deal with your acceptance of your abusive government masters.

And you can toss in your attraction to economy of scale, but there is a reason economists keep utilizing simple scenarios like the sheep farms all sharing access to a piece of unowned land to justify complex economic principle.  It’s because logic and morality doesn’t alter just because more people are involved… To think otherwise is a silly, unacceptable fallacy without a logical path.  If it’s so logical, why haven’t you offered one?

“Just because you got an answer you didn’t expect, you think the answer is wrong, and you’re unwilling to explore any alternative.”

Hilarious. You mean the answers that I and most other people made when we first were confronted by the idea of stateless society? The same answers that people constantly come up with who don’t know what in the fuck they are talking about? Yeah man, I was so super surprised.

“You seem pissed the coercion of the individual by the group is the price we pay for being able to exploit economies of scale and avoid TOC problems. Have you asked yourself what if it’s not a choice?”

Ok now I’m starting to think you just don’t really know what economies of scale means.  Do you mind giving an example of a product or service that you feel wouldn’t be able to flourish without coercive collectiveness?  I’d pick something like the iPhone but it’s pretty damn clear how much smaller Apple’s market share would be if it wasn’t for government assisted monopoly in the form of patents.

Would the energy industry be more efficient?

The food delivery industry?

The food production industry?  Is it economies of scale that justified the government paying farmers not to grow food or to pay farmers to overproduce?  Funny how the government is back and forth on that concept.

How do you think regulation assists economies of scale instead of literally making businesses less efficient.

“You really don’t understand the TOC do you. It’s not about evil. It’s about diffusion of responsibility and scale. Wiki game theory.”

Of course I do. It’s an old fallacious concept that the government creates more than it prevents.  Do you have any examples of how a problem of the commons was created by the lack of a coercive institution?

If it wasn’t for people acting outside of direct government suggestion or just acting on government regulation, do you honestly think we would have built any industry at all? Government doesn’t facilitiate industry, it regulates it. How do you logically deduce that government stimulates industry? Are we going to argue that a government enforced privately banks fiat currency is what provides industry?  What else could it possibly be that you think government provides that allows economies of scale?

“ “so commonly utter failures””

“Bull.”

Oh I see. So you have no idea about the increasing numbers of homeless, old people eating cat food, literacy rate declines, reduction in wages (you know, inflation?), the repercussions on the economy as a direct result of government financial policy, the constant state of war,  the consistent reduction of privacy and ability to change the government, the increase of health care costs, the decrease of health care quality, the increase of the number of criminals, the increased of the number of prisoners, the increase of policy brutality, the increase of government corruption, the increase of corporatism/revolving door/collusion… But seriously, social programs are getting better right?

“You like all the rest of them want to punish the poor for being poor, as if it’s a choice. You islanders are hilarious. You probably think the dinosaurs are all dead because they were too lazy to find food all of the sudden, they should take responsibility for having a sunlight based food chain. Slackers.”

I definitely don’t want to punish the poor. I want to incentivize them to live productive and have happy lives, and feed and shelter them when they can’t gain it on their own, but still incentivize them.  What drastic evil ideas your head is filled with about people with caring intentions towards humanity! You will believe or say ANYTHING to justify your worship of state won’t you?  Is it time to point out the us vs them fallacy? lol

“You have no concept of variable scalability. You think because something is true at one scale it’s true at all scales and you build your ethics accordingly. They are as a result hopelessly flawed.”

So you have a revolutionary idea that ethics and morals are modified by quantity.  Go into details please, because thus far you’ve just tossed generalizations and phrases without logic attached. Maybe you will do so further down in the post, but I doubt it.  Anyway, I was kidding about revolutionary.  Utilitarianism has been molested ever since its inception to justify atrocities against humanity.  The very use of collectivism to justify immorality is a molestation of the public. In other words, the same unethical insanity you are spouting is the same thing the worst government leaders and supporters throughout history have spouted.  And it’s the same nonsense that turns seemingly benevolent governments into protectionism and then inevitably to tyranny, if not inevitably then at least historically consistent.

“I see 6 year olds with cell phones texting away and all of them are on facebook. You don’t mean literacy, you mean English standardized test scores, which is a different thing entirely.”

I’m also see these children txting and posting on facebook, and I also agree that it aids to literacy.  It’s probably more important than the public school system. The social ostracism alone that results whenever someone makes a tragic accident of grammar or spelling mistakes can really straighten out someones language… Anyway, if you support public education why are you opposed to the public tests that are intended to determine the results of public education?  Are you saying that the tests are designed to trick us that the education system isn’t functioning as intended?

“Besides you go on later to talk about education being optional with regard to responsible citizenship, so what do you care if literacy is falling?”

I said people couldn’t more easily afford to send their kids to non indoctrinating private schools because of taxes to provide public education.

Your continued disingenuous accusations are irritating.

“Our government hasn’t been given free rein to try. Even in FDR’s time the 1% of his day hired PR types to sabotage helping the poor. You would know that if you’d watch/read the stuff I linked but you won’t, you’re more comfy with your bogey men and exploitation complex.”

Oh you mean the government failed to get its program working?  So even though the government can’t make it happen, we should still keep empowering government to attempt to get it working even though they keep failing? Regardless of the reason you believe in, it’s clear it doesn’t work.

And this PR thing is hilarious.  I still want to hear your argument about how PR is more dangerous in a stateless society than a statist society.

“And perhaps you should ask why given that it’s still everywhere as opposed to anarchy. I’ve explained but you don’t want to hear it. You’re like the feminist who thinks disparity of pay can’t possibly be due to anything other than male conspiracy.”

Slavery was abolished too even though people defended it just as emotionally as you for thousands of years.  Even the slaves themselves.  This is no justification for coercion though.  It’s no justification for being coerced by an institution that without oversight calls initiation of violence legal.  Did not slavery provide economies of scale? Did not slavery produce for the majority? Was not slavery thus by your logic justified and moral?

“Because your concern for helping people is secondary to your concern for who gets to dictate terms. Your help is conditional. It is dependent on the satisfaction of your ego and your perception of having enough.”

Oh I see, so you are just full of shit and making up arguments. Cool, at least we’re on the same page now.  So you really haven’t been reading what I’m saying or giving a fuck at all about having a conversation.

You are accusing me having an ego and perception problem regardless of my clear suggestion that I’m convinced coercive society is less effective at leading to human progress and happiness than a noncoercive society.  Interesting set of values you have there.

“Also, rich people often never feel like they have enough, this is a neurological thing in some, if not all, cases. As a result, they don’t donate except when induced or forced. Advocating a system that places the well being of humans simply for being human secondary to your right to acquire and hold property is inherently exploitative. It literally puts your needs above the group and the needs of the one do not outweigh the needs of the many.”

yawn

Where did I say I was driven by a desire to hold private property first and foremost? You are on a roll with making shit up!

My foremost desire from a societal standpoint is to see humans be free.  Oh my gosh I’m so evil and psychologically deluded!

“That’s ego, not charity. That such acts feed your ego makes you a good person, but that trait cannot be relied on as the sole remedy for people unable or even unwilling to “earn” income.”

You’re really grasping for any bullshit you can think of now man.  You’re really not doing anything but insulting.  All you’re really doing now is abusing me.  I’m sad that you have been so abused by society that now you must abuse others in an attempt to defend your flawed ideology.  I wish I could help you in some way.

Did you literally just say that the goodness of peoples hearts can’t be relied on to help people who are unable or unwilling to provide their own survival?

Wow.

So somehow government is a magical replacement of goodness? Helping people is something that people do regardless of their intentions?

“You islanders talk a big game about freedom and choice by one freedom you damn sure don’t want for everyone is freedom from work.”

On how your collective is so much better than my collective! So much smarter

Are you literally saying that I believe everyone should have to slave away at jobs or something?

“Well reality permits freedom from work and I think after 200,000 years of brutal Darwinian struggle to the top of the food chain we have collectively earned it. I deserve it and you deserve it for being the great grand sons of the tribe that invented fire and the written word.”

And you had the nerve to accuse me of some hopeless fantasy of utopia. lol

“There needs to be an inheritance cap. We need to eliminate dynasties, not encourage them. I don’t want to trade one Pharaoh for another.”

More stealing of one persons property and handing it to another.  Cause that will work so great right like all other government policy does lol.  How do you imagine one people would become so massively wealth in a free market?  The people who are massively wealthy now, and I mean billionaires, and we might as well just toss companies with insane profits — are using government assisted monopolies and government handouts to get so rich.  So what mechanism would enable them in a free market exactly?  Free market lowers prices, does not bar competition, does not stop someone from copying technology and making it cheaper, or selling it cheaper, or improving on it and then incentivizing people who love new technology from purchasing it, and so on.  What is this mysterious mechanism that you are aware of that I’m not which would make a free market just as bad or worse than what the government has wrought?

“I believe that. Honestly. But you don’t understand diminishing returns. You’d eventually stop. You’d eventually start blaming them and tell yourself “well they’ll just spend it on drugs” or “they’re just lazy and refuse to take responsibility” or “they don’t deserve it as much as I do” (or whatever) to keep your money.”

You are claiming that I would stop giving money if the government stopped taking it.  Man I wish you could explain to me how you make this crap up. How do you reach a conclusion like that? I just don’t see how someone says something that illogically.  I don’t see how it’s possible that you arrive to these conclusions critically.  Other than the total lack of data you have to build such a conclusion, you are literally assigning characteristics to me.  No wonder your arguments are so inconsistent.  You claim that you care so for human kind, but then you appear to dig yourself this enormous whole of me vs you, my collective vs yours, and assign whatever value it takes to justify your claims regardless of a total nonexistent path of reasonable deduction.

“Granted you’re trying to solve the root problem, and I’m willing to pretend your ideas would, but you’re just replacing one form of government with another. And the current 1% would be even deeper in the 1%.”

Please explain to me how not having rulers is a form of government.

“”It’s not that the people are in charge but that the people’s desires are in charge.” That won’t change under a stateless system.”

Peoples desires aren’t in charge. Big business is in charge.

“…would be motivated to perpetuate the problem for continued existence. Charity has to be managed by a multipurpose organization so it can survive actually solving some of the target problems. Otherwise it’s little more than a bilge pump strongly motivate to generally fail.”

So why do so many private charities exist?  Only government programs are strongly motivated to fail, because government programs violate basic economics principles of reason to perform.  People can’t choose whether or not to pay into the program, so what incentive is there for performance?

On the other hand, how do you consider that someone motivated by profit is motivated to fail? That makes absolutely no sense and doesn’t seem to reflect economic theory in any way.

I’m not surprised that you didn’t get the point, so let me help you out a little.

Given an equivalent ability to deliver food and services to the needy:

Charity A doesn’t have a transparent business practice. So I’d avoid it.
Charity B has 50% overhead and is paying its execs excessive bonuses.
Charity C has 75% overhead and is paying its execs much smaller bonuses.
Charity D has 75% overhead and is paying its execs the same size bonuses as Charity B.
Charity D has 90% overhead.

I’d support Charity D as much as possible.  If they were overextended or somehow unable to expand and it was somehow reasonable, I’d spent additional funds on Charirty D. Yeah, their execs are making more, but if their business can perform so efficiently but still pay their execs so much, then their execs are going to do everything they can to keep that business chugging along.  If they change their business practice, I’d pick another charity with what I find to be a more ethical business practice. etc. My priority is first with helping the most amount of people sufficiently.

“Think about drug companies. Do you honestly think the largest manufacturer of cancer treatments on the planet would fail to oppose internally the release of an outright cure for cancer?”

Of course they would oppose it, just as the oppose it now.  Except they can do more than oppose now, they can literally bar people from copying it through arbitrary government assisted monopoly: patents.  So if someone decide they want to save more lives and copy the drug, they can be forced to stop, all in the name of the original company’s interests.  If it wasn’t for the government, there wouldn’t be anything stopping them from copying it, would there?  Or do you believe that they would use their private army to go out and attack people in a stateless society to stifle innovation as well?

Are you familiar with the refusal of sale of HIV treatment to africa because they would have needed to sell it much cheaper (even though still at profit), but if they did that the drugs could have been sold back to their artificially highly priced markets like the United States? ← government incentivizing companies to be unethical and literally follow a business practice that results in more suffering.

“None. I have zero income. People like you would have me starve to death because of how I was born or how submissive I’m not.”

Do you need some money?  Or is your pride for your faulty argument so strong that you must still accuse people who want to help people of in fact wanting to hurt people?

“I’m neatly excluded because leftists are mad that I like the 2nd, rightists are mad that I want a cap on wealth and a negative income tax, and tea partiers, are mad that I see the usefulness of some shred of government while believing we all have responsibility towards my fellow man.”

I’m not mad, I’m just impatient with your false accusations and sad at your inability to reason logically.

“Your self obsessions have ruined the world. I can’t go help anyone because it’s dog eat dog over the scraps of the 1% out there. The job market today is in effect a tide of starving slaves jockeying for a particular kind of whip.”

Looks more to me like the illogical acceptance of government has ruined the world.  If people were so bad, it wouldn’t take so much propaganda to get them to believe in the contradictions that lead to bad government policy.

“Because you assholes have convinced each other that poverty is a choice and if only you can lash the poor with sufficiently harsh austerity and humiliations they’ll finally turn white and stop talking all funny.”

Not me.  I want to help people succeed, not throw them to the streets. For example, I’m a big fan of community farms. It doesn’t take much to be involved in one, but it makes a big impact on the local economy and local homeless problems.

“So I should totally disregard the suffering of others like Rand’s psychopathic disciples? I was born with a conscience. (Not merely an ego temporarily stoked by the thrill of magnanimity.)”

You are disregarding the point of a fallacy.  No one said emotion was invalid. The point is that using emotion in the place of an argument… is a fallacy.

“Did the linked video not overtly and clearly laud the danger of forcing people to ignore their conscience?”

I would never suggest that people ignore their conscience.  But I would suggest that they learn some logic skills, philosophy, economics, and psychology.

“I’m willing to stipulate that. I think diminishing returns would be a long term problem in a volition only system, but I could be wrong so I’m happy to pretend I am wrong there.”

Government isn’t generating diminishing returns?

“Depending on how you define evil”

I define evil as avoidable acts of immorality. Avoidable is the arguable part of the definition yes? If you can’t avoid someone from killing you other than killing them, then it was unavoidable. If someone is initiating violence against you, and you must use violence to stop them, then it was unavoidable.

On the other hand if someone told you they would shoot you if you broke into their house, and in full understanding you chose to enter their house, then they pulled a gun on you, and you chose to pull your gun and shoot them first, then this is evil.

Initiating violence against against someone is evil.
Murdering people is evil. If you are defending yourself, the root here isn’t murder, it’s preventing your murder.
Kidnapping people is evil.
Rape is evil.  This one is pretty simple because, there aren’t really situation where rape isn’t even arguably not evil.  If you try to claim that someone says, either sexually penetrate this person or we will kill your entire family and their family, then the real act of evil is the coercion, not the act you were coerced into.  It still doesn’t mean the rape isn’t evil, but focusing on it in the scenario is a fallacy.
Putting nonviolent criminals in prison where they will be raped for however longer their sentence is, is evil. Supporting this prison situation is supporting evil.

“But the fact remains it solves problems nothing else can solve. If anarchy had a solution to TOC problems it would be a game theory Nobel prize.”

For example?

“The housing bubble proves awareness of players is insufficient. There will always be people willing to exploit the group to death. This is another reason for a cap on both wealth and poverty, one to pay for the other. A water cycle. We need evaporation and rain.”

The housing bubble proves that government financial policy is either wrong, or doing exactly what was intended in the first place – causing an economic crisis.

“Says the camp that blames the housing bubble on irresponsible home owners who got what they deserved. Your ignorance of scale is showing again.”

Sorry, which camp are you referring to? Anarchists?  The housing bubble was due to government stimulus, which was justified by keynesian economics, but really who believes the government perpetrates this nonsense against us repeatedly unwittingly? Your ignorance about what me and possibly most anarchists, or rather your willingness to arbitrarily accuse me and other anarchists of any doctrine that strikes your fancy, is showing again.  And yet you have the nerve to accuse me of being a poor critical thinker. But really, it’s just typical behavior of people who call a stream of fallacies an argument.

“What do you think stopped the banks from getting too big to fail? Regulation. Your culture would lack it and it would end up with the same monopolistic 1% we’re dealing with only you would lack the authority to regulate.”

Define “getting too big to fail”.  I don’t agree that banks got to big to fail.  The society I want does not prevent all types of guidance of business. But really man, you are talking about something that only exists in the confines of government.  Fiat currency is not something that would rule the lives of a free society really now would it? Would there be a business that loans your wealth to you at interest in a stateless society.  There is no government to force you to use that currency and give banks a monopoly on lending, and subsidizing the costs of protecting banks.  So really, you’re just blowing smoke.  Of course there wouldn’t be any “banks that got too big to fail” (not that there are now, that is just more keynesian economics) because there would be nothing like the banks that exist now in a stateless society.

“Just like you get it from being charitable. Yes.”

Cute but tragic that you compare a reward from helping people to a reward from hurting people.  Typical though from your corrupted morality and intellect.  Do you think that somehow people help people because they have achieved a zen state of being a robot, and not because it makes them happy to help people?  Is there some better foundation of society than people who are happy to help people?

“Well causes of such brain states are not fully understood, but yes. I’m also aware of the rise of psychopathy.”

Are you changing subjects, or are you equating psychopathy and reward-seeking?  They are completely different.

“How a lack of conscience is utterly adaptive in today’s economy and political landscape and how easy it is to exploit the language of personal responsibility to charismatically mask that pathology. You’ve been taken in.”

Please tell me more about how people who want to help people and literally do help people are truly just wanting to seeking a society where they can watch people suffer.  It’s really fascinating. Really.

“Yes, psychopathy coupled with sadism means cruelty and risk seeking is the only way they feel anything. The so called “dark triad.” I’d give you a link but you hate reading.”

Interesting. Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying… You don’t know anything at all about this subject?

“But then again future readers may not..”

Dark triad has nothing to do with what I was talking about. But please tell me more about how I don’t like reading, or hate reading, or too scared. Any more characteristics you’ve thought up to verbally abuse me with? It’s very helpful, truly.

“But your camp considers children property just as much. Just get Alex Jones on a spanking rant to get a clear example of that. Your camp routinely speaks about parenting rights as if they are property rights. The rights of the child don’t exist on your side.”

You’ve truly devolved beyond my level of patience now.  But we aren’t really having a discussion are we?  That went out the window long ago. We’re just in some kind of defensive pissing match now. You know, you making shit up and accusing me of it and then accusing the concept of stateless society of it.

Let me disabuse you, once again.

Children are the most delicate members of society. They’re unique position of not being able to strike out on their own creates the need to be thoroughly cognizant of the implications of our actions against them.  The abuse that children are subjected to in the home, that they have no option to escape, becomes their personality, and is what they will inflict onto society and onto their children – perpetuating the existence of people like you with such deep infliction of Stockholm Syndrome in your abuse relationship with the state that you will literally write fiction in arguments against people that want a peaceful happy society, accusing them of in fact being evil people exploiters and selfish haters of human progress. lol

The abuse children suffer can be completely private. Which means we must be extremely vocal in or need to treat children peacefully, nonviolent parenting, and to show them love.  I believe we should staunchly ostracize people who are violent with their children.

After all, children are the future of humanity.

But please tell me more about how I want to make children suffer.

“This is where NO ONE agrees with me. I’m the one person in the room, always, that wants kids to be people from the start and society to be structured in such a way as it is possible to have one law which applies to both children and adults.”

I see, so you truly have no exposure to anarchist ideas, teachings, writings, theory, forums, community, or anything? Fascinating.  Well. No wonder you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to anarchy.

But please tell me more about your revolutionary ideas that are unique to you that in all your scrutinizing of all subjects and fields of thought, are only present in your head and your writings.

“I wasn’t making the argument you think I was, I made the argument I made and you see it as the other because you refuse to critically examine your view. You assume because it contains elements of the argument with which you are familiar it therefor must be the argument with which you are familiar by virtue of my disagreement with you and your black and white thinking.”

So which part did you say that wasn’t in my argument since you clearly claim to have accurate knowledge on the arguments that I have made?

“You don’t see the difference because frankly you’re a poor critical thinker. (That really isn’t meant as an insult I just think it’s a fact, like I’m poor at remembering names and dates.) You realize the high priority of the issues in question and thus think checking what you feel to be right is a waste of precious time.”

Then lets pick a simple issue and step through the logical deduction shall we?  I’ll be glad to enter into this if we continue communicating.

“Rather than check your answer you move on to the next problem because we are drowning in problems. I completely understand. And I don’t blame you in the sense that I think you’re a “bad person” for this. I just think you’re dangerous because of it.”

Please tell me any place where you feel I didn’t sufficiently answer you and I will revisit it.  Or list them all and I will revisit them all.

“You’re trying to drag down social policy to the individual scale where specialists dominate. You think a purpose built charity is going to be better in all cases than a group multi tasked effort because an individual specialist is better than an individual generalist, but groups don’t have such limits. They can be good at everything. But again you ignore the TOC because at that scale the charity contains a TOC.”

No.

I don’t understand why you are so incapable of reading comprehension.

I’m talking about GOVERNMENT COERCIVE POLICY AND COERCIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

Do you just not know what the word coercive means?

“It has to exist to solve the problem, but if it solved the problem it could not exist. That’s why nothing ever gets done. When was the last time a drug company CURED something? Not developed a treatment for. Cured.”

Why would a drug company cure something when it has government assisted monopoly based incentive to continue profiting off their products?

“Jesus man dentists are still using drills and glue.  But I presume you blame government interference, not profit motive. And until we get rid of government the argument is unfalsifiable. So it’s win/tie.”

Of course I do. How else would dentists be able to innovate and compete if it wasn’t for a pile of government regulation telling doctors what they can and cannot do. I mean jesus man, regulations are so amazing at incentivizing people to perform and innovate right? Instead of the other way around?  What do you think would happen if a dentists opened a shop that didn’t use government assisted enforced dental practices?

“You’ll always have something to blame, and so will I till one of us gets total authority to re-write society, and until then those capable of playing both sides against the middle will win. And thus the glory of the two party system.”

Oh I see, you’re still making up shit. I kid I kid. It’s not like I think you would stop or anything.

Let me bring you back to reality of my argument:

Coercion is immoral.  People not having a choice to control their own actions, or to try and act ethically, or having to choose between what is being imposed on them by another human being or die, is coercion and it is immoral and evil.

“Incentive is in fact detrimental to the solution of complex problems. That’s another more subtle TOC.”

So people don’t perform because they have a reason to perform, they perform because of some other force? Oh wait, wouldn’t that be… incentive?

Do I have to ask you if you know what incentive means too?

Do you have some other explanation for why government programs perform so poorly than the basic economic principles that when acted on instead of violated result in performance?

“Yes I have you’ve just assumed they were synonymous with previously heard arguments and dismissed them out of hand (which is why you feel justified in not exploring my links) you think it’ll just be same ol same ol, and it might well be in part, but again the problem is scale. I’m talking about the whole, not the part.”

Regardless of my finding of similarities, I still argued with you about them.  Interesting new cop out of you latched onto though and utilized several times now, that somehow I didn’t argue with you because I pointed out how elementary, common, and predictable your arguments have been.  i.e. you are not exposing me to new arguments.

“Like I said, points at tin pot war lords and tribal war zones all over the planet. What do you call it when a previously autocratic setting suddenly loses its autocrat? Anarchy. They happen and implode constantly like pistol shrimp air bubbles. They are inherently unstable. That’s why a power vacuum is synonymous with instability.”

How about naming a specific one and we’ll discuss whether or not an anarchy ever existed in it.  The brief moment in time between when a government falls and a new government is in the works is not anarchistic society.  Or were you truly going the anarchy is chaos route. lol. The word lord is not compatible with anarchy.

“If anarchy was more adaptive than government that’s what we’d have. What we don’t have is proof of what works. We don’t have cubic eyes and tripedal creatures for similar reasons but you refuse to even think about that. Instead you rattle off counter pressures at individual scale making the implication that the reason anarchy doesn’t exist at the scale above is because of the individual pressures. In short you refuse to explore the possibility that anarchy simply can’t exist at the scale you’re suggesting because it can exist at the scale below.”

Actually exploring the possibility that it can’t exist is step 1 to learning about anarchy.  You seem to be caught up in constantly saying it can’t exist without actually evaluating it.  Saying economies of scale and tragedy of the commons constantly isn’t an argument. Talk about some examples and we’ll do some deductive reasoning.

Also, we do have proof that the systems throughout history failed.

“You did. You said repeatedly that government is founded on coercion. But you weren’t going far enough back. It began in the ice age when environmental pressure coerced (heh) humanity to choose between cooperation or extinction.”

No, I didn’t. I didn’t say when government was founded, or when the roots of government were founded.  I didn’t say anything at all about ice age other than that I can’t think of anytime someone mentioned it.  I’m sorry if you took that to mean I’ve never heard of the Ice age before in regards to the history of human beings.  I’m talking about in most of the discussions I have on these topics.  It probably even came up before, but oh well.

Cooperation suggests voluntarism. Not coercion.

Just to make sure I understand you, you are justifying coercive government policy because you believe the idea that humans were forced by the environment to volunteer to act together?

Did you know that coercion isn’t a requisite for the existence of a community, organization, or cooperation?

Did you know that coercion is literally a description of human behavior?  It’s not the description of general requisites. You should really look up the definition of coercion.  It doesn’t even mean without choice. It means people forcing people.

“And since before government people have been coerced by the consequences of the physical constants. (Of which the laws of game theory are an extension, the TOC being but one facet or one example.)”

And long before government people have overcome physical constants, and without government assistance people overcome physical constants, even today.

“No, the smallest possible government is a single charismatic autocrat. The leap from kingship to democracy is by definition a leap in scale and size.”

Lol.  No man.  The idea is that the government with the least amount of regulation and influence on our lives turned into the government with the most amount of regulation and influence on our lives.  I wasn’t talking about employee count.  I also didn’t say “possible”, and it’s alarmingly illogical to me that you would inject that arbitrarily into my statement.

“A hurricane has no moral gradient. Coercion of some sort is required to solve TOC issues for a non-homogeneous population, that’s not conspiracy, it’s simply physical fact. If you can solve that problem a Nobel in mathematics awaits you.”

So you believe that people can’t build hurricane proof shelters without coercion?
Or that people can’t decide to choose safer places to life, without coercion?
Or are you honestly personifying a hurricane and saying it coerces people?

Are you trolling me?

Please go look up the definition of coercion so we can start having the same discussion.

“Complain to the manufacturer. I’d rather we eliminate the entire pain based food chain. And I think we can, but it will mean the de facto extinction of humanity as it currently is. :/”

You said this in reply to my claim that coercion is the basis for the worst society.  What does your reply have to do with coercion?  Manufacturers have something to do with coercion?  Why would I complain to a company about coercion?

http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/
(More stuff you assume you already know the content of by a skimming glance at best.)”

I’ve read brave new world and much analysis of it.  Do you think it strengthens your argument or character somehow with your consistent abusive accusations?

“Now you’re conflating all gov with current US gov. I’m rabidly opposed to 90% of us gov policy. But the difference is I don’t knee jerk my way from there into anarchy. Baby/Bathwater”

Oh you see, anarchy wasn’t a knee jerk result for me.  Knee jerking is when you don’t think about something and jump to a conclusion. I have spent a lot of time arriving at anarchy, done much reading about it, arguing against it, learned much philosophy, economics, psychology, and history that all lead up to my current position.  It’s not a knee jerk.  Calling it a knee jerk is just more of your silly ad hominem nonsense.

How about explaining the 10% of US govt policy that you agree with and I’ll tell you whether or not I agree.

“No but “Coercion is immoral” is. Do you define coercion as requiring violence? (Shockingly, yes.) Do you then not consider fines/humiliation/etc coercive?”

Fines require violence because without violence there is no need to pay the fine.  In a free market, if someone applies a fee to you, you can always go to another provider or decide not to do business with the person, or leave.  When a govt fines you, you pay or go to prison, or get shot resisting going to prison.

What does humiliation have to do with coercion?  I assume you don’t mean tying someone down and then doing something embarrassing to them, because the tying down part is the coercion.  You prove again and again that you don’t know what coercion means.  If you don’t know what it means, how can you even begin to discuss whether or not it is moral?

Maybe we need to talk about what moral means?

“You’re inventing your own hypothetical, not addressing mine.”

No I was trying to flesh yours out to give it some justification since you didn’t bother to do it. You left it completely open and our NOW starting to describe it to any extent at all.  So what was I supposed to do just accept it as the surface complete flexibility you left it wiht?

“Which again is what game theory is. Tony and you are breaking the rules of the game to show that the game can be won. (Kirk did that also. But that lesson is intended to demonstrate sometimes there is no winning sometimes there is only minimized loss.)”

Cute but as you didn’t actually describe the rules, I had no choice but to try to rationalize your scenario.  But please go on defending  yourself and accusing me. You left it WIDE open and I tried to rationalize it.  Please accuse me of more shit really it’s so ethical. Also I’m just so thrilled with the idea of someone as illogical, abusive, and accusatory as you coming up with government policy.

“I think it’s possible that life presents us with situations where a life must be taken to save other lives yes. As a macroscopic predator you do it every day, you just find a way to make plants, animals, and bacteria, “not count” or do you live on minerals?”

Just to be clear, you have agreed that it is immoral to shoot plague victims.

“Similarly however I think it’s perfectly in your right to pass the buck. To make someone else pull the trigger. That’s what soldiers are for in an uncorrupted culture. Those willing to take on a life and death burden for the good of the group.”

Then let’s hope it’s not a majority of plague victims then.  Above you started to get around to saying that these people were without control of their senses. We’re starting to get into the argument of calling them zombies at that point. If they have a sickness that makes them irreversibly incapable of reason is it really still coercion against a human being?

And to pick out the silliest thing you added (moving the goalpost) on this lifeboat scenario, a condition of the infection is that they would try to infect other people ← that is coercion. That is initiating violence.  So of course people would defend themselves.

Your scenario is utterly preposterous, utterly illogical, and utterly self defeating. Please explain how this isn’t the case.

“Of course they’d feel bad. Plenty of people feel awful despite having had no alternatives. My mom was an ER nurse, I know all about feeling bad about atrocious situations.”

I stubbed my toe one time and I felt bad.  But that isn’t something to bring up in a discussion about coercion.  Now if you said your mom had to choose between killing someone to free up a bed, that would be a different situation. But just seeing being in bad situations that make you feel bad is completely illogical to bring up in a discussion about coercion.

“You’re changing topics.I already said the USG is corrupt and unjust, those aren’t attacks on the validity of government itself, merely the validity of this one.”

And I’m suggesting that possibly the reason every government is corrupt is because it is built on a corrupted sense of morals; the contradiction of legalizing the initiation of violence against people to tell them what to do.

“New? It’s the default condition. Government is newer and it’s prehistoric.”

We were talking about an actual function anarchy. Not the anarchistic principles of human interaction outside of a government.  I wish you weren’t so bad at communication.

So again, please point out or show documentation of an actual anarchy.  After all, I didn’t say “I never read about anarchy” I said “I’ve never read about one”, which should be pretty clear we’re talking about a society, not general human interaction.  Otherwise I’d just point to how people conduct their daily lives, or how the upper levels of government functions without oversight or coercion, but in fact on social ostracism, and so on.

“If you knew ANYTHING about it, you wouldn’t be asking how it would work without coercion or that it is a form of government.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.”

“If it’s so easy then fire off the answer.”

I’d really like to hear your justification of invoking that fallacy. You see, if I had said “no decent human being would say what you said” I would see the justification for it. But instead since you are making a knowledge claim that you clearly do not have, what you are doing is being disingenuous and literally lying about the foundation of your position and understanding.  I don’t know why you are doing it, either because you have no argument, have too much pride to admit you have no argument, or because you are mentally ill, or whatever. Regardless, you’re doing it, and then incorrectly thinking I’m committing fallacy. lol

You see, when you make a knowledge claim about something and then don’t understand the basic principles that define it, that is known as being full of shit.

“DRO models are orders of magnitude more equitable than government solutions, I’ll stipulate. But without coercion they are redundant/incomplete/incompetent and with coercion they are equivalent to good government.”

How is it redundant/incomplete/incompetent if I agree to pay something as a result of negligence to meet a contract? There are a lot of ways to to facilitate this, but lets just keep it simple.  I had $10,000,000 to the DRO that will be given to the other side of the contract if I neglect.  Where is the coercion?  Where is the redundancy? Why would you even say that bullshit about redundancy? Where is the incompetence?  Am I going to break into the DRO and take my money back? I volunteered to enter the contract. I volunteered to agree to the terms. I chose every step of the way. Where is the coercion?

“How would a DRO solve disputes with implacable participants without coercion?”

Who would do business with a DRO that didn’t have a guarantee?  Who would do business with a DRO that wouldn’t be obligated to meet their end of their contract regardless of their ability to settle with the negligent side of the contract?  And if the DRO failed to meet their contract, who would do business with them again? And you do know a lot of business takes place without any formal contract at all, right?

You know, basically the same way the business world works outside of government coercion.

“Let me guess, that’s too far below your probability threshold to consider.”

Oh you’re trying to erase all of the argument I made against your lifeboat scenario and just sum up the fact that I accused you of having to think up something ridiculously unlikely instead of using actual real world examples? Please go on to use that as pre-emptive argument against my consistent offering of argument.

“says the guy who redefines coercion arbitrarily and flippantly refuses to consider hypotheticals.”

BWAHAHAHA

I didn’t just consider your hypotheticals,  ALL OF THEM I might add, but I even responded to all of them, and for the most part obliterated them. But keep on moving that goal post.

Coercion is when a human or human collective forces another human or human collective to do something.

Yet I’m the one who redefines coercion? You are the one who personifies hurricanes so you can call hurricanes coercive.

Please show me anywhere that I redefined coercion. lol

“I know. You were being a smart ass. Not having asked your real question (if it even was a question as opposed to a statement) I’m not going to speculate.”

No, I was being honest.  Why would I ask you to send me definitions on things that I could easily google?  You seem to have a really serious projection issue.

“I feel no pressing obligation to duplicate effort just because you’re intellectually lazy/callow. If you don’t want the answer, fine. It’s there for future readers.”

Ok fine, then our discussion has to utterly fail while we both consume the list of materials that we both suggest. Right?

Or when you pose an argument you actually explain your argument instead of speaking in general concepts and links.

“Absolutely. The state as a result of it’s own lust for power is a check on profit motivated PR, (Though granted it funds and develops power motivated PR of it’s own.) One less check improves it’s power.”

So you realize the state uses propaganda to mislead the public. To lie to the public. And this continues to lead to the stripping of freedom, the inefficiency of economy, the exploitation of the public, and war. And yet, you somehow think this would be worse in an anarchy, where there is no public to mine like a piggy bank for everything that big business wants to do, but where people actually have a choice where to spend their money.

In other words:
In a statist society, propaganda tricks the public into being ok with not having a choice where their money goes.
And your suggestion is that:
In a stateless society, PR would trick everyone into paying for atrocity anyhow.

I think it’s horse shit, but even if it wasn’t  I’d still rather have a choice.  I just don’t see anywhere in your discourse an explanation that it would be worse in a stateless society. And I can’t think of one myself, so I don’t know how to agree with you.

“A stateless society would have less PR, but that’s only means the PR that remains would be the only player.”

What would prevent other people from advertizing?  Under your description, how is the government no the old player?

You seem to make one argument after another against stateless society, but don’t realize that you are simultaneously making that argument against government.

“Human society is now a tripod, composed of religions, governments, and corporations. I call this arrangement “The Company” for short. They have historically be checks against each other to one degree or another. Sometimes they team up to attack the third.”

Religion is control of humans for profit.
Corporation s an attempt to make profit.
Government is corporations controlling humans for profit.

Business always look for ways to do business. The worst tools ever handed to them were religion and government. I’ve read of nothing that has ever allowed business to exploit and control the population more effectively than either one.  The way people authority worship government with complete irrationality is akin to religion.  The way people justify government atrocity on immoral contradictions, is akin to religion.  It seems to me like the problem is still people worshiping and empowering authority, not some separation of religion and government and business.

Religion empowers business immorally.
Government empowers business immorally.

For example: Government grants contracts without consulting the governed, and can do so secretly.  Government starts war without consulting the governed.  Government creates new ways to invade the privacy of the population, without consulting the population being invaded.

Religion did the same thing when it was governing people directly.
Corporations who have neither religion or government on their side have to make products that people want, or else no one will buy them.  And they also have to compete, which means they have to keep making better products, which benefits humanity.

Anyway, I completely disagree with your tripod.  Religion and Government are just businesses. Corporation is a form of business empowered by government.  Removing government means corporations are just businesses.

“Eliminating one of them entirely is risky.”

Because you feel they are somehow in a  checks and balance struggle with each other?  Are you familiar with the concept in most religions that you should follow the laws of the land?  And are you familiar with how corporations dictate to governments?

“Yes, but I took it as a given that his anarcho syndicalism would in goal ultra minimize coercion not attempt to eliminate it. His model is far more workable than yours with regard to violence but the PR argument stands against both your models.”

But the nice thing is, under the model I’m speaking of, people could create any kind of cooperative they want and see how it plays out. They just wouldn’t be able to coerce other people to be a part of it without society ostracizing them.

“I think yours would actually be worse because of what would rapidly follow it.”

“Example: Depressions defund governments, and governments fall. What follows are typically worse, though I’ll admit I know of no instance in history of a government being defunded while its populace remains funded. (As would happen if we all just stopped paying taxes.)”

Governments historically create depressions to expand their power and to expand the control of wealth of their financial institutions.

“I strongly suspect any government would just begin taking what it wanted and civil war would result. Which probably means the effect has happened and I just missed the cause.”

Government already takes what it wants, all the time.

“The fact that they make drugs has nothing to do with it? Insulin is valuable because of patents?”

No I’m not saying that, you are, right? You are the one justifying government policy here, not me.  I’m saying that if it wasn’t for patents then the price of drugs would come down. Even the availability of drugs would come down, such as in the HIV treatment atrocity.

“Cocaine is popular because of lobbying?””

Popular?  Was that your point or something? I didn’t know we were talking about popular since no one said popular anywhere.

Cocaine would just be another product if there wasn’t an incentive to the the drug cartels, prison system, and government control of our lives to keep it illegal.  If it wasn’t for drug cartels and the prison industry lobbying the government to keep the war on drugs going strong, maybe we could eradicate it.

“What about the fact that drugs are just chemicals and these companies can make whatever chemical they like? Like say Sarin or VX?”

How would that be profitable?
If they are so immoral and their plan is to kill people willynilly, why aren’t they doing it now? Couldn’t they just manufacture a bunch of VX and wipe out and take over the government?

To build on what you said, what about the fact that drugs are just chemicals and other companies would produce them and sell them as well if it wasn’t for patents?

“How about you tell me which of Edward Bernays’s techniqueswouldn’t work in a stateless society? Did the government force people to go to the world’s fair and visit “democracity”? Did he force women to suddenly start smoking? No. He manipulated their unconscious. And unless your model includes some radical brain augmentation/alteration any PR guru in a stateless setting would have 200,000 years of human evolutionary baggage to work with.”

I’m not saying PR doesn’t work. I’m asking, how do you think it would play out?  What do you think the population would be lead into doing exactly? Just going back to government or choosing to be slaves?

And more importantly, why do you think it would be worse in a stateless society?  How could it be worse than what we have now where people are lied into accepting the murder of a million people in another country?  How could something like that even be profitable to a country in a stateless society? Paying for war is all about debt that future generations have to pay off, against their ability to choose not to.

“As I said the state is a check on the profit motive of companies, to a limited degree because it sees them as potential rivals for power. It cares about power. Your model would be ruled by corporations and religion. Sure they wouldn’t have the government to squash competition for them but they wouldn’t need it either.”

Then why is the government literally dictated by corporations?  If government office is mostly composed of people who either work directly, enjoy revolving door, or benefit directly from the corporations you desire protection from, how are you being protected from them?

Is not the government the most powerful tool in history for those companies to get profit without the public having any choice?

“You’d still have wage slaves and a ruling class of PR types, clergy, and land owners. Indeed your stateless society would rapidly turn into a kind of feudalism. Commerce and religion would be the two halves of The Company, as opposed to the three parts we have now. Gov/church/corporation.”

So you believe that people who ended the existence of state because they stopped practicing the abuse of children, the worship of authority, and coercion, would through the application of PR decide to go back to feudalism, or at the very least, something worse than current forms of government. lol.

Do I even have to ask you to explain this when we both know you won’t?  Man I get it that you believe these things but if you can’t explain WHY this would happen what is the point of even saying that you believe it would happen?

“Nope. They are just the ones given the proceeds of power. The ones in power are the influence peddlers, the PR men, the volition engineers. That the 1% believes they own the PR men is doubtless, so in a sense big business is in charge granted. And sure individual PR men can be killed and replaced if they get too uppity. But as a class PR men are indispensable because of the power they wield.”

So you agree with me that businesses are in power.

“O.o Yeah because you refuse to read I’m the lazy one. I spent all day on this reply knowing full well you probably won’t even read it all the way through, let alone follow the links.”

No dude, the point is that if you can’t make your argument, you might as well not have an argument.  It’s a cop out.  If your concept is so complicated that you can’t reduce it to first principle at all, then you don’t even understand the concept and you’re just subscribing to ideology on faith.

“No my point is how does your culture handle ebola? It has two choices. Coercion or destruction. Coercion is the wise move. Then we can study it and be ready for it. But your model lacks that ability.”

Why would coercion be necessary if a company decided to study Ebola  You mean they should be coerced to study it? Or that the population should be coerced into paying for that company to study it?  Why is it impossible to study Ebola without coercion?

“Or are you seriously going to let just whoever wants (and can pay for) have a sample? Plagues are a special case weapon’s class for a reason. It’s a wmd that can be placed in a pocket. How would your society deal with a 12 monkeys scenario? Oh right, too unlikely, must not consider. My bad.”

You mean the way that it actually is now where companies can truly do anything they want in secrecy without anyone finding out?  Well, I guess I’d rather take coercion out of the equation since this already exists. You know, since coercion is immoral.  Are we supposed to leave out the time travel portion of 12 monkeys?

Anyway, which part of 12 monkeys are we talking about? The part where the government turns everyone into slaves for protectionism? Avoiding that is part of the argument for stateless society.  Or just the part about someone trying to release a deadly virus into the public.  Which people are perfectly capable of doing now, yet, it never happens for some crazy ass reason, right?  Maybe it’s because the governments are the ones perpetuating the terrorism of the public in the first place.

What is to prevent a CDC employee from destroying the population?

“So now we know which PR men would run your culture. Religion would come to utterly dominate the uneducated, and encourage them to out reproduce competition.”

I would never promote an uneducated culture.  Are you familiar with how knowledgeable people who are educated through a homeschooling community and how prepared they are to function in the market?

“We’re not, even in this culture people for the most part don’t take people with severe mental illnesses to vote, prisoners can’t vote, and children can’t vote.”

I didn’t say children, the mentally ill, and prisoners. I said “everyone”.  You are making the case that most people are without the skill set necessary to be free.

“That’s because business adapts faster to reality than college curricula and their product’s value isn’t tied to usefulness. They sell entrance cards.”

If their value is entrance cards, then why are you making the claim about business adapting faster than college?  I am suggesting that all colleges do is offer entrance cards and not true work skills.

“And the pool of needed skills is shrinking due to exponential technology increase scaling up both the power of automation and the complexity of demand.”

I disagree. Automation and complexity create and enable new skill sets and new fields of study.

“What happens when the first major employer corporation replaces all human employees with humanoid androids but doesn’t change prices any?”

And you think government will prevent this?

“You’re creating a society that will come to be dominated by two classes, the obscenely wealthy/powerful and the contractually/spiritually enslaved. And the obscenely wealthy of this society are the ones penning your arguments.”

Who are some of these obscenely wealthy people penning my arguments.

Because it seems to me the people penning them are the people who are traumatized by abuse and being forced to act.  It’s clear coercion is immoral.

The obscenely wealthy, the people who literally dictate government and religion, are penning arguments to perpetuate and empower government, because it empowers their own wealth and control over the population. They aren’t penning arguments to end government, or we would have gone to full free market long ago.

“You refuse to accept the origins of government. We don’t tolerate it for those reasons alone.”

We tolerate it because we don’t have a choice. You know, coercion.

“Well since you don’t include contractual obligation obtained via humiliation/starvation to be coercive then I guess I don’t. Your culture would eventually implement a de facto tax. Possibly a literal social contract that consumers would force producers and corporations to sign as a condition of not being boycotted. Assuming the target corporation didn’t have a monopoly on some critical good or service or was otherwise boycott-proof.”

Why would someone agree to boycott a corporation that is operating ethically and provides products they want?  Because other people in society are coercing them into doing it?  Sounds like government does it not?  So we’re not even talking about stateless society.  In paraphrase you are just saying that stateless society will turn back into statist society.

“You custom defined coercion. In this sense your culture can work because you’ll ostracize (Isolate? Starve?) deviants until the culture is homogeneous.”

Your disingenuous accusations are completely unacceptable. I’m sorry for you that you don’t know what coercion means but NO WHERE in my posts have I “custom defined” coercion. Since you clearly don’t agree with my explanation of the definition, go look up the word coercion so we can actually be on the same page.

Your personification of a hurricane and calling it a coercive force to get humans to cooperate is the fucking epitome of custom defining coercion.  So please, tune back into reality.

“No it isn’t. You just said a person doesn’t need to be critically educated to act peaceably. Playing by your rules I have no responsibility to you at all.”

I asked why it was necessary for people to be educated in the skill sets you listed for them to be able to act peacefully.  You’ve used my statement to justify a non sequitur statement about obligation.  Why do you think that is logical?

Peacefully and obligation don’t mean the same thing.
Peacefully and responsibility also don’t mean the same thing.

Why does my claim that people can act peacefully without critical examination education make it reasonable for you to make arguments and then ask me to do the leg work for your arguments?  How is it not OBVIOUS that I was speaking about what is reasonable and not what you are obligated or what you should be coerced to do?  It’s unreasonable to make arguments without explaining them.  That kind of nonsense is used to justify religion and oppressive government policy.

“Just as you don’t have the responsibility to read my links and watch my videos. Which incidentally is why I feel no over powering urge to drag you to water when evidence suggests you’re not going to drink anyway.”

Sure I feel some responsibility to watch and read everything you’ve posted. I’m not surprised that your abusive mind has chosen to think I wouldn’t  I’m not really surprised at anything your abusive accusatory mind thinks up about me and people who want peaceful society.

“I wouldn’t know but I do know language changes context and context alters meaning. Not all concepts can be translated and expressed in all languages. Perhaps your potential unawareness of that fact is related to your manifest unawareness of the limits of scale?”

Perhaps your seemingly unawareness of the importance behind logically deducing from first principle means that it doesn’t take a specific language to speak about the very simplistic topics that are used to justify very complex ones.

“Indeed, fortunately that’s not my position. Straw man, again.”

Here is your post: “Virtually all of it. Right now I’d like to eliminate all these people whining about entitlement because they want other people to share their life style.”

The people you are labeling as “whining about entitlement” are the people who don’t want coercive society, want to help society, and want to provide for the needy, so yes, they are the people you are talking about, and it is your argument unless you admit you don’t know what stateless society is about at all.  So in fact, no straw man.

“Not an equal level, but enough at minimum to live quietly and peacefully so that participation in society is a real choice. That islanders never can get behind that idea is why I see them as enemies of freedom. What do I care who’s in charge if both sides want to force me to work?”

I would never force you to work.  But you seem perfectly ok with forcing me to provide for you, which in essence, is YOU forcing me to work.  I might volunteer to provide for you, but if you try to force me to provide for you, you can go fuck yourself.

“If it’s a choice between slavers who feed me and slavers who make me gamble and beg for it who ultimately have no problem starving me to death, who do you think I’ll pick?”

Oh I’m sure you’ll pick the government just like you always do in this conversation. You’ll pick the one that is murdering people, arguably leading to the growth of the homeless problem, growing it’s oppression of the population etc etc. It’s clear who you pick.

“You people have no sense of community. You’re clannish at best. That’s a poor poor substitute.”

You have no sense of community. It’s authority worship and removal of the ability to make ethical choices at best. It’s a poor poor substitute for peace.

“I don’t think rain ruins the water cycle, no. The 1% are creating a global wealth drought. And they already have everything they want. They have nothing left to spend it on. It has to be taken from them. They are aristocrats. We’ll either be starved to the point of killing them, French revolution style, or the people will attempt in some way to force them to share systemically and they’ll wisely submit to our judgment, otherwise they’ll refuse and again, civil war.”

The point was that when people don’t have incentive to work and produce, society fails, and has always failed. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the reason government hasn’t worked thus far is because of the super rich elite… So my question here is, why do you not get it yet that government doesn’t work and just empowers the super rich elite and that in fact it creates and perpetuates the super rich elite?

Funny how you keep invoking civil war when it’s always the poor that do the fighting.

“Until someone gets a monopoly. You realize there are sources of monopoly other than government edict right?”

There has never been a natural monopoly. It’s a myth perpetuated to justify classical and keynesian economics, and literally to justify the creation of monopoly by government. How typically self defeating and illogical of an argument to use in the justification of the moral contradiction of government.

“I’ve said for years if you’re too slow to outwit a child you shouldn’t have had one. My position on children I already explained. To me they are little people. No culture on earth honestly treats them this way.”

They is much more to children than just being little people. They are in a unique position that requires parents to exercise the most diligent implementation of moral behavior in society, in my opinion.

I said: “You’ll just utilize avoidance in your next response as well.
You replied: “Says the guy as an excuse for avoiding links.”

I haven’t avoided your links.  Are you literally asking me to come back and make your argument for you?  Also, you STILL AVOIDED IT JUST LIKE I PREDICTED.

“Be sure to follow it up with how you think humiliation isn’t coercion. Because as all islanders know, poor people have no right to dignity.”

Or I could take them beyond your flawed logic and actually explain to them what coercion means.

“And if a workable society could be made that indulges that want it would be called utopian.”

So you’re admitting coercive society is a society built on moral contradiction?

“Did you not notice them ALL being neck deep in debt while the 1% is entirely corporate?”

Who are you talking about?  The super rich elite weren’t neck deep in debt. They’re the ones using government to take everyone’s wealth.

“God you people are such literal tools.”

In what way?

“I suppose all of Greece just suddenly got lazy and it’s the government that bankrupted the people. It had nothing to do with global banks.”

Greece’s government was already out of control with spending before entering the EU and the guaranteed subsidization of being a EU member allowed them to lower interest rates on government bonds. So of course government spending increased.  There wasn’t magically more money for Greece’s govt to spend, just magically more ability to accumulate debt. Which it did. Why wouldn’t it? Government always tries to spend as much money as it can possibly get its hands on.  So Greece ran up its govt deficit.  When the global financial crisis developed, the ability of the stronger EU countries to subsidize Greece was impacted, especially in the eyes of European banks. Combined with Greece’s govt deficit increasing as they reported escalating and doubling govt deficit ratios, the interest rates on their bonds of course increased. So now you have European banks buying Greek govt bonds with a premium over the bonds of other countries. Why not? The Greek bonds pay much more interest and European banks would still turn around and use them as collateral to get loans from the ECB with the same rates as if they were bonds form the strongest country in the EU.  So the Greek govt was still growing their debt to support their economy.

Greek taxes increased, so prices increased, so investors took their money out of Greek banks, which they were perfectly free to do under the EU rules.  Capital was thus depleted.

How was this not due to the Greek government?  I understand if you want to say the Banks created a debt hole for them to step into, but if they had listened to austrian economists instead of classical or keynesian economists, it wouldn’t have happened.  The government forces the citizenship to use Euros. Not the other way around.  They don’t have a choice but to be on a money system that let the government crash them.  They allow a bank to loan their wealth to them at interest. So either the government is solely responsible for forcing this on their citizens, or if you want to just blame it on the banks, then the banks are running the government.

“To secure rights for profit motivated big business.”

So you see my point that government is an evil tool for big business and can’t be trusted to exist?

“To secure antiquated business models for big business.”

So you see my point that government is the largest barrier to human progress?

“Says the guy who doesn’t believe forced starvation and humiliation are coercive…”

Sorry man, I’m a little uncomfortable having to point out such obvious errors for you.  You said forced starvation and forced humiliation.  Force is the key word of coercive is it not?  Your lack of English comprehension or at least your need to just spout nonsense has enabled you to equate the word force and the word volunteer.  So let me rewrite your false statement for you to make slightly more sense:

— says the guy who doesn’t believe choosing not to share your property with someone or choosing to socially ostracize someone is coercive. —

There you go.  Of course I never actually said humiliate.  But I guess your void of knowledge on these subjects is another area of ignorance for you that allowed you to equate humiliation and ostracism.

“But holding their food and telling them what to sign is.”

You mean I took someones food away from them and then told them where to sign? Why would I ever do that?  Why do you think I’m evil and coercive?

Let me fix this insane statement for you too ok? :)

— but withholding my property unless the person trades with me, or unless the person is truly incapable of survival unless I share my property, is for me —

Every argument you made against anarchy was an argument against government.

You are willing to take other peoples property, arbitrarily, based on justifications that the most horrible governments have used since the beginning of governments.  The same utilitarian justifications that were used to justify  tyranny, slavery, conquest, loss of privacy, abuse, and imprisonment.  You are clearly an immoral person as you promote that quantity is the difference between moral and immoral action.  You have proven that you are unreasonable by continuing to accuse me and other people with similar viewpoints as mine to have the exact opposite values, regardless of my consistent explanation to the contrary.  You have proven that you are disingenuous by consistently assigning the same non sequitur value to my arguments and claiming to have knowledge about subjects that you clearly didn’t   You initiated condescension in this thread.  You are the kind of person I wouldn’t communicate with outside of having to defend myself in a public forum, like this one.  I’ll continue defending myself and refuting your accusations against me, but I really have no desire to communicate with such a morally perverted person.

I am by no means going to respond to all of that. Jesus, you win. I’ve seen less text debating 10 people at a time. Thank you for making me viscerally realize I’m not near the obsessive tireless rebutter I thought I was. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

I honestly feel bad about not replying completely since you had to have spent hours on that, but from my initial skim you’re not really responding to me as far as I can see, just sort of repeating yourself and arguing with your version of me. Though I’m willing to believe you aren’t doing it on purpose.

Also we seem to have some crossed definitions. Like your use of “coercion” and “moral” are suspect. But I will answer a couple of the direct questions just so the hive mind can know my mind.

Morals to my mind are absolute rules provided by religion where as ethics are arrived at, so I’m using them interchangeably here.

“Is it moral to force drug users to go to prison?”

Prison itself is unethical. Sequestering people can be ethical. Like quarantine, or mental illness. Prison is about punishment and deterrence. I find neither to be useful.

“Is theft moral?”

Depends on the context and the target. How you determine ownership is a requisite here. That’s the source of disputes. One man’s theft is another man’s repossession/justice.

“Is it moral to take other peoples money against their will or else you imprison them?” | “Is it moral to shoot someone if they refuse to let you take them to prison?”

See above.

“Is rape moral?”

Of course not.

“Is it moral to take someones children away from them if they refuse to put them through school?”

Absolutely not. But I’m quick to add it’s also unethical to prevent a child from attending school if they want to or hiding the existence of school from them for the same purpose. Kids aren’t property.

“Is it moral to force people to pay for road work on roads they don’t drive?”

That would depend on the feasibility of the alternative. Roads aren’t just about personal use they are infrastructure, part of the economy of scale of society. I don’t drive but I may someday need an ambulance, that means good roads. I don’t think it’s fair for me to not have to contribute if I can afford it. Not everything is like buying a sandwich.

“Is it moral to force people to pay for debts that were created before they were born?”

Complex question.

Generally yes but only collectively in the same way it’s ethical that future generations profit from the work and discoveries of previous generations. I think it’s fair to include a measure of cultural debt to pay for cultural inheritance. Besides, it’s unavoidable. I can’t undo previous pollution. I’m happy to prevent future pollution and help clean up past pollution. So long as the effort is efficient and fairly organized.

“Is it moral to murder someone because they are developing nuclear weapons?”

Technology doesn’t have a moral gradient. I can’t answer that question without the context. Who is developing it and why? Remember, dynamite has many legitimate uses. In a world not irrationally terrified of nuclear tools and energy I could envision a number of legitimate uses.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/115460652257293860011

“And seriously man: Is it moral to steal food to survive if they refuse to give you any?”

Absolutely. “You can’t build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery.” ~Norman Borlaug

“Man your facepalm and O.o shit makes you look like a fucking retard.”

I’m happy to let history judge me. :) Besides, you’re one to talk with your constant cursing and name calling.

“(collectivism land rant)”

Each situation is a hypothetical with presumably different contexts. Each situation would require analysis, that’s why ethicists aren’t bored.

“Take your time.”

I’ve wasted far too much time on your and this argument already, now I’m just having fun and killing time while my cat sleeps :)

“(dress code rant)”

O.o <—< This means that I’m genuinely confused by your response.

That bears no resemblance to my point at all. You surprise me exactly like true mental illness surprises me. Your answer is vaguely related, I mean we both spoke about dress code, but it’s like you didn’t process the over all meaning of the paragraph at all. You do this a lot.

I’m betting you have a mild autism spectrum disorder. (No shame in that by the way.)

“If someone starves to death because I didn’t want to give them my property, it’s not coercion.”

And that’s the crux of it isn’t it. You islanders don’t take any responsibility for your actions or the well being of other people. I do.

You take “not my problem” and elevate it to an insane degree. You’re like a mob of one, a walking example of diffusion of responsibility.

“Would I starve someone to death? Of course not.”

See? It has to be on your terms or not at all. Your ethics are entirely arbitrary and based on your whims. You’re a brutal aspiring emperor just like the rest of the islander types. That you are capable of kindness I do not doubt. But that’s not the issue. The issue is culture and policy and ethics across all scales.

” Why (should?) someone be entitled to access to other peoples property including feeding and sheltering without any say so of the other people?”

My ethical bedrock is based on axioms in favor of mutual support. I’m not an ant, but I’m not a lizard either. I believe pleasure and life are good. That is axiomatic, faith based, and sensual. Pleasure feels good to me and I like being alive. These things just are. I assume such is true for all humans for purposes of my ethical calculations, so long as they experience sufficient pleasure they enjoy life.

I also feel an axiomatic duty towards qualia. Life without qualia, isn’t life, it’s machinery. Like a virus. I strongly doubt a virus experiences anything. It get murky from there on up and I try to balance my impact on lower life forms with the cost of moderating that impact.

I wash my hands and eat meat and the like, but I don’t wantonly torture, and I rescue frogs and insects and mice. But I’ll smoosh a wasp or even a spider also under the correct circumstances.

It’s like economy and utils. I try to maximize utils for all players. I try to maximize life for all players, and similarly minimize death and pain for all players.

Can the mob be ethically in the wrong? Of course. But determining that isn’t possible with absolutes. I need to know context. The problem here is your absolute and blind worship of property right. (Which is why you default to authority worship as a hypothetical explanation for my disagreement with you, you paint me your polar opposite.)

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html

“So you really have a society full of people who didn’t arrive somewhere ethically, but just weren’t given a choice, so really don’t understand the concept and execution of ethics on those issues.”

That’s a complex way of saying without evil being permitted good has no value. And I agree in that external discipline corrodes internal discipline. But I think it’s possible to make a culture with a good set of guidelines and teach the populace why they are good with history and simulation (game theory, hypotheticals, etc.)

“Why would you think I’d be so heartless as to want these people to just die?”

Because you’ve made your ego your god and I know what the ego is capable of deriving pleasure from under the proper context.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

“If coercion is involved, how are people free to make ethical decisions?”

They aren’t, ultimately.

I don’t believe in free will.

Waking Life – Free will But it certainly feels real and choice or not the perceived impact of my actions is a part of my actions.

I try not to do harm, but I have no assurance that I won’t.

“After all, if they’re willing to declare it is public property shared by each other, why not just slice it up equally?  Tragedy of the commons averted.”

You’re averting the problem by converting the group into an individual. The moment they act in concept like that they become a single cultural organism. This is why the nash equilibrium works because in a sense the players are cooperating like cells in a tissue forming an organ.

You haven’t solved the problem, you’ve introduced a new parameter. Cooperation and homogeneity. You’ve either taken the “common” out by making the public land private or you’ve taken the “Tragedy” out by making all the farmers the equivalent of one farm with equal owners.

That’s not a solution, it’s an evasion.

“You and people with your ideologies…”

You don’t even know what they are, clearly. And you’re not interested in knowing either judging from your refusal to explore links.

“It’s because logic and morality doesn’t alter just because more people are involved…”

So you admit that you don’t consider scale when you evaluate your ideas because you don’t believe scale to exist as a meaningful variable.

Well at least I know why you were ignoring it. Unfortunately you’re wrong. And you would understand that intuitively if you took a shred of responsibility for your fellow humans. But you’re a borderline solipsist, and so others might as well not exist. You live in your own narrow little scale and you are convinced the rules that work in it would work across the entire cosmos. It was a good call not to waste any more time on you. :)

“If it’s so logical, why haven’t you offered one?”

You would reject it simply because it doesn’t serve your ego. That’s why you’re so hung up on this picture of me being a mindless worshiper of the state because that’s how you feel about yourself.

When all you’ve got is a hammer, the world starts to look like nails.

“Do you mind giving an example of a product or service that you feel wouldn’t be able to flourish without coercive collectiveness?”

Well since you somehow define a PR formed empire ruled with humiliation and “extraction” of resources as not coercive, no. I’m sure the resulting empire could in theory accomplish anything.

You’re just inventing a new kind of government, and hey I’m down with that, reform is urgently needed.

“How do you think regulation assists economies of scale instead of literally making businesses less efficient.”

The point of regulation isn’t to increase profits. It’s to make sure the needs of humanity aren’t placed second to the profit motive.

“Do you have any examples of how a problem of the commons was created by the lack of a coercive institution?”

Setting aside your constantly injecting a word whose definition is arbitrarily in your favor. Millions. Just ask yourself how much better the world would be after 1 year of you as autocratic planetary ruler.

“…the repercussions on the economy as a direct result of government financial policy…”

Foreclosure Fraud – MSNBC w/ Cenk & Matt Taibbi
http://vimeo.com/20861423

Government is only to blame for that in so far as they didn’t stop private enterprise.

And I’m done. You’ve gotten boring.

“I really have no desire to communicate with such a morally perverted person.”

Coulda fooled me with the single biggest reply I’ve ever gotten on the Internet.

See also:http://underlore.com/islanders/

Updated: August 12, 2014 — 8:03 pm
Underlore © 2013