NYCmetsfan
Banned
.
life is illegitimate. i didn't consent to being pushed from my mother womb.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yes, but what is that based on? This is kind of the core of the argument, distilled right here: you claim that in 100% of cases its illegitimate, and I (and I believe) the others are saying "there's no way to purge it completely from the human condition, and therefore we have to devise the best way to harness it".
benjipwns
Banned
I don't see a problem with chasing a standard you may always fail to meet.
empty vessel
Member
Ownership of private property requires might making right as against all people who are not voluntarily associated. It's the same thing as a state. Moreover, even people who are "voluntarily interacting" will have disagreements about the ownership of property that must be resolved, and the losers of those resolutions will have the might-makes-right principle enforced against them. Again, this is the same thing as a state.
I feel that you fail to understand that not every application of force is without consent. Underlying the whole enterprise of society is that humans consent to being a part of society and that they therefore consent to being forced by others to do things or refrain from doing things. Thus, people consent to the might-makes-right principle, and its application against them is not at all involuntary. People do this because they recognize the immense benefits that human society offers over living on a deserted island by themselves.
Most of your actual complaints about governments are not theoretical but practical. The theory of popular sovereignty and democratic government is basically exactly what you claim to want.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But at least my problem is with your use of the word "illegitimate". From my perspective I don't hold that the government's hold on force is illegitimate because I see it as something desirable, that I therefore willingly grant. It is legitimized by the fact that most people recognize it as a necessity. So just what does "illegitimate" mean? Is it enough for one person in the system to dislike it?
You're once again being disingenuous if you believe paying taxes and slavery fall under the same umbrella to anyone but the most hardcore libertarian.
That's great. Do you have a more current example that proves your point? It seems to me that your argument is based on nothing but wishful thinking.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Exactly he wants the same thing but with out 'violence' which means if people don't want to live by the rules the entire thing collapses, which is why there is the threat of violence.
benjipwns
Banned
It is illegitimate if it is imposed without consent, yes.
People can be wrong.
My argument is based on nothing other than a moral assertion against the legitimacy of monopolized violence. As I've made clear repeatedly from the start.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Then we go back to the whole social contract thing.
You consented by being born in whatever nation you were born in.
Now, if another nation were to invade the nation you currently live in, and set up a new government, then yes, your argument would be relevant. Which is why I support freedom fighters in nations that the United States invade.
empty vessel
Member
Property ownership requires monopolized violence. Else, it cannot be enforced and every individual can only "own" what they can physically exclude others from. If you truly want to do away with monopolies on violence (which I think would be insane since I don't want random individuals or groups of people having the prerogative to inflict violence on me), then you have to do away with meaningful property ownership.
If you and I both claim ownership over a plot of land, and I start building a house on it, how are you going to get me off of it? You either must resort to force yourself, or lacking the power to use force, appeal to an entity that has monopolized it. If no entity has monopolized force, then your ownership extends no further than your individual physical power. If I am bigger or more well armed than you, then I own the plot of land. At least until somebody bigger and badder comes along. Most people don't think that is a good way to live.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Then its literally an ideal that cannot be lived up to, since there will never be a pure consensus within a large population. Which is fine, I suppose I agree with the ideal that we should always be trying to make a system that more people will approve of. But you seem to see the abolishment of the state as a goal worth pursuing, and I'm not sure what basis you have for that being the option that the most people would consent to.
RustyNails
Member
Looks like Biden is planning on running...huh
Strange as it may sound, I hope he runs to give Hillary a platform, not to win. Hillary needs a good bruising in the primary. Otherwise she will get coakleyed.
benjipwns
Banned
Someone else cannot claim a truly legitimate consent for me. Especially against my will. Despite what some MRA's might think.
I've already acknowledged that the use of violence to get one's way is the more popular view and likely to remain so. I don't see why asking that we consider consent and refraining from violence from time to time gets such a hostile reaction.
Yes, well no one does, but some of them think they can and some of them even claim you consented to it. The nerve of those people huh.
Yes, I said this.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I guess what I'm getting at is that I find your stance paradoxical because people are able to consent to having aspects of their life be non consensual.
WayneMorse
Banned
"Why don't they vote for me? I'm a nice guy!"
benjipwns
Banned
As I suggested earlier, and it's not your fault if you missed it among all the trees, I don't consider it to be actual voluntary consent rather a false choice. Since if you don't consent, the state will break your knee caps or give you some cement shoes.
If you're saying something like we have 50 people and 35 stay with the USA, and 5 form Steveland and 2 just go find a shed to write manifestos in, etc. Then I have no problem with granting that they consented. But if Steveland starts demanding the USA consent or it wrecks up the place, the USA can't meaningfully consent.
And I also believe that if you cannot revoke consent without harm that it's not a serious form of consent.
But we're like way off in the philosophical weeds now because that's where me and Chichikov started. I just want to note again that, I'm an evolutionist. So if you ask me something like "what should we do about education?" or "who are you voting for?" I can avoid the disclaimer of "SMASH THE STATE!!!! (nonviolently by withdrawing consent)" discuss it semi-ideal semi-realistic, non-ideal realistic, etc. but I'm not perfect. I'm a lunatic but not a one-track lunatic.
At least two. Minimum.
Also like I said if you really want to get something that runs along my lunancy, Michael Huemer's book is like the definitive god send, it's like somebody came along and wrote the book I would write without the endless digressions and meandering into historical and irrelevant minutiae and illustration. Or the slow paced Socratic method or whatever it is Cyan said I do.
I appreciate this and all discussion on here with you, EV and Chichkov, and also regards to the hop-ons we picked up on our worthless journey, bonercop and co.
empty vessel
Member
I understand that to be what you are arguing for. You are opposed to giving up the individual prerogative to commit violence to the collective, which means you are arguing that individuals should retain the prerogative to use violence against each other.
I have considered consent. You did consent. Else, you'd be living on a deserted island. I don't understand what makes you think you can enjoy the immense benefits of society without abiding by its rules? It is not that you haven't consented, but that you are trying to freeload: to get society's benefits without paying any price. Violence--or, more often, the threat of violence--is used to enforce society's rules against would-be freeloaders.
That is not to say that all violence inflicted by, say, the US government, is warranted today. We are talking theory here, not practice. And in theory violence is both consented to and warranted in order to enforce rules.
benjipwns
Banned
No, I am not. I reject coercive violence. And I reject so much disproportionate violence even in self-defense that the case set is beyond limited.
Why is freeloading a problem? Shouldn't I be entitled to a minimum standard of living and set of benefits for being a citizen? Why do you want to slash my social safety net and throw me onto the street?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I still find your logic fundamentally flawed, and I think its because we're dealing with semantic concepts that aren't clearly defined. The idea of a society with completely consensual interactions doesn't make sense to me as even a theoretical construct. It feels defined in reverse, like the words were placed in that order and then someone tried to work backwards to make them mean something conceptually, but they just don't. I'm trying to better articulate what I mean by this, but something here is paradoxical with regards to the meaning of the word "consent"
benjipwns
Banned
How many of your specific daily interactions would you suggest are voluntary or combating nature?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Wait, I think have it, or at least part of it: you described earlier a system in which people act consensually because of social structures that keep them from continually pursing their own self interest to the detriment of others or whatever else because they are afraid of angering the group (basically balancing two forms of self interest) and "having their premiums increased" or whatever other consequence arises. But those implicit threats that keep people in cooperation are of the exact same form as coercive violence, they're just coercive in a different sense, since we require other people and therefore those people can hold our dependency on them as an implicit threat. Even in the systems you describe people are coerced into behaviors, they just aren't coerced because of threat of physical violence, but because of dependency on food, medicine, etc. The only state in which what you've described can exist is if every individual is entirely self sufficient.
And coincidentally enough, it's never the ones who have gone through slavery that compare it with paying taxes.
Even if it results in more people being worse of?
empty vessel
Member
But that's you personally. I might not. And if I have not ceded my prerogative to use violence, then you can't complain if I decide to hit you. I mean, you can complain, but you could not do anything about it other than fight back. I would be well within my "rights" to hit you, since I've retained the prerogative to do so.
You are not talking about freeloading. One freeloads by enjoying the benefits of human society while refusing to recognize society's authority and rules, i.e., willful rule-breaking. It is who we call "criminals." (In the real world, I have a lot of sympathy for people who commit criminal acts, but we are talking theory here.)
The person who has a minimum standard of living and set of benefits for being a citizen is not freeloading at all. That individual is not breaking any rules or denying being bound by them while enjoying the benefits of human society. They are playing by the rules society has established.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
"Do what we want if you want to live" is coercive no matter if its "or else we'll stab you" or else "or else we'll refuse to provide what you require from us"
benjipwns
Banned
Not giving something to someone that they want is not employing coercion against them.
Ah, so only those in good standing are citizens and to be given any of the benefits of society. Will the rules require me to work? I'm not feeling like it after a long lifetime of consenting.
Okay, and? The alternative you're offering is that you get to hit me because I consented.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will never end. They will turn to violence when property and trade re-emerge to address scarcity.benjipwns, just join the cool people club already and become an anarcho-communist. no states or feudal lords to worry about, just comrades living in perfect harmony.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If other people have some degree of control over your livelihood then your relationship has an implicitly coercive aspect, because they possess the ability to damage your livelihood. Like I said, the only way out of this is complete self sufficiency for every individual.
benjipwns
Banned
So basically, from the mere fact I exist I have agreed, completely voluntarily and consented to not just obey a geographically local corporation but also have agreed to owe debts and duties to this corporation. And I should be grateful because the alternative is I might get coerced by someone else.
I see now, why would I have ever not wanted to use violence against people I don't like.
I see now, why would I have ever not wanted to use violence against people I don't like.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yes, and there's technically a chance that I will wake up on Mars under quantum mechanics. I'm more concerned with functionally useful concepts.
I'd rather take my chances with the proletariat than with property owners!
i mean, yeah, that's basically society in a nutshell, including the one you posit. see: what you admit would happen to me if i were to reject the core premise an anaracho-capitalist society is built on.
benjipwns
Banned
empty vessel
Member
If land is not free, it is. People need food to live. If they are deprived of land by "ownership," then they are coerced to do something in exchange for food to continue living.
If you accept the immense benefits of society (including property ownership, exchange, collective self-defense, etc.) while disclaiming being bound by society's rules, then you are a freeloader. It's got nothing to do with work. The rules are whatever society decides they are. It's not about what the rules are. It's about your agreeing to whatever they are in exchange for being a part of and receiving the benefits of a collective human enterprise.
Most people do not want to live that way. And those who claim to want to live that way are people who just haven't given it any meaningful thought or who have been tricked by people with ulterior motives into accepting it as a premise.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't see how this doesn't imply never opposing the state's actions.
Ah, okay so preferring non-violence means I haven't given it any thought or just been tricked by some nefarious evil, well thanks, I see the light now, I'm going to go invade Canada. With their consent of course.
Feel free to insert whatever appropriate verb I should have used instead! I think the more important part was about the whole "involuntarily getting shot by property owners" thing
benjipwns
Banned
All I advocate for is intellectually denying the legitimacy of monopoly corporations to own people.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
For all action to be voluntary every individual must be able to acquire what they require independently.
I asked this before. What if what you advocate for results on more people being worse of?
empty vessel
Member
People can certainly oppose the state's actions. They can oppose the rules that exist and explain to others why they should be changed. But until they are actually changed, they must comply. This is admittedly simplified, because we also have something called "rights," which are individual actions that society has agreed that it should not infringe upon (or social actions society has agreed it must undertake). And there is something called civil disobedience, which is a non-violent means of disobeying certain rules based upon an individual claim to a deeply held moral principle with which the rule conflicts. But note that even individuals engaged in civil disobedience do not deny that society's rules apply to them writ large. They don't deny the very foundations of the social human enterprise. Having a conversation about civil disobedience requires more nuance, but we are not even there yet, because you are denying society's prerogative to enforce any rules at all.
The question isn't about what you personally believe. That you personally do not believe in violence does not require anybody else to believe that. And if you want protection from those people, it will require either that you become a well-armed bad ass or that you join a society which will require that you voluntarily cede your prerogative to inflict violence yourself. Seeing as how you are opposed to violence, it is odd to me that you are so stridently opposed to renouncing the prerogative to use it.
Edit: let's look at this from a different perspective. Let's say you and 1000 like-minded individuals find an island upon which you and they voluntarily choose to go live to escape the nation state. You know only a few of these individuals personally. When you convene on the island for the first time, what is the first thing you reciprocally promise to each other?
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/11/elizabeth-warren-socialist_n_5305537.html
Such fair, balanced and hard hitting questions from Bob Schieffer.
Such fair, balanced and hard hitting questions from Bob Schieffer.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Here's how I look at the morality of taxes personally at a very very base level.
Lets say you come across two people on the street. One is a rich man and the other is a very poor, very sick man that is dieing on the side of the street who needs a simple operation to save his life but has no money to pay for it.
The first question is, is it immoral to use force to steel from the rich man? Obviously it is, as peace and property rights are essential to human society and it is a very selfish act to violate those.
The second question is, is it immoral to let that man die on the street when you can do something to save him? I would definitely say yes, both out of the evolutionary concept of mercy and selflessness, and out of the religious teachings of Jesus Christ by following the way Christ lead his life.
So ideally you give money to the poor person, and don't take money from the rich person, but what if you don't have any money to give the poor person? Then what? Then you have a trolley problem. Should you let the poor person die, or should you take action, to make the rich man slightly inconvenienced to save a life? Personally I would always take action to find the best result for everyone.
Take this into the real world and you have it be made into an easier choice, because income taxation is a much much softer form of coercion than actual stealing, since there is always the choice to just not make enough money to be taxed.
There are still limits to this depending on how inconvenienced the guy being taxed is, or how much utility to get from that tax, but with how obscenely rich the rich has gotten, there's honestly a lot of room to tax them before they actually see a change in their own life, outside of their ability to use that vast wealth to do the major political/economic power plays that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Lets say you come across two people on the street. One is a rich man and the other is a very poor, very sick man that is dieing on the side of the street who needs a simple operation to save his life but has no money to pay for it.
The first question is, is it immoral to use force to steel from the rich man? Obviously it is, as peace and property rights are essential to human society and it is a very selfish act to violate those.
The second question is, is it immoral to let that man die on the street when you can do something to save him? I would definitely say yes, both out of the evolutionary concept of mercy and selflessness, and out of the religious teachings of Jesus Christ by following the way Christ lead his life.
So ideally you give money to the poor person, and don't take money from the rich person, but what if you don't have any money to give the poor person? Then what? Then you have a trolley problem. Should you let the poor person die, or should you take action, to make the rich man slightly inconvenienced to save a life? Personally I would always take action to find the best result for everyone.
Take this into the real world and you have it be made into an easier choice, because income taxation is a much much softer form of coercion than actual stealing, since there is always the choice to just not make enough money to be taxed.
There are still limits to this depending on how inconvenienced the guy being taxed is, or how much utility to get from that tax, but with how obscenely rich the rich has gotten, there's honestly a lot of room to tax them before they actually see a change in their own life, outside of their ability to use that vast wealth to do the major political/economic power plays that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
rocketknight
Member
You guys are wacky today. Not enough meat on the Sunday shows this morning?
Rubio: 'I Don't Agree' With 'Notion' Of Climate Change
Is he stupid, or just politically savvy? Elect him to find out!
Hagel: Military Transgender Ban 'Should Be Reviewed'
No shit. Do it already.
Gowdy: Democrats Have 'Selective Amnesia' On Fundraising Off Tragedies
Democrats trying to pass gun control legislation after Sandy Hook = Republicans circlejerking patriotically in Benghazi hearings.
Bachmann, Wasserman Schultz Clash Over Benghazi Select Committee
If the person you have out on the circuit talking about how non-partisan your committee will be is Michelle Bachmann, you need to fire either your publicists or the people who check Bachman's restraints.
There!
Rubio: 'I Don't Agree' With 'Notion' Of Climate Change
Is he stupid, or just politically savvy? Elect him to find out!
Hagel: Military Transgender Ban 'Should Be Reviewed'
No shit. Do it already.
Gowdy: Democrats Have 'Selective Amnesia' On Fundraising Off Tragedies
Democrats trying to pass gun control legislation after Sandy Hook = Republicans circlejerking patriotically in Benghazi hearings.
Bachmann, Wasserman Schultz Clash Over Benghazi Select Committee
If the person you have out on the circuit talking about how non-partisan your committee will be is Michelle Bachmann, you need to fire either your publicists or the people who check Bachman's restraints.
There!
To be fair often that sort of question gets asked so the person can address the attacks. Ideally you don't want that sort thing to get any footing, but when it does...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
can we just cancel all of these shows?
has santorum ever been asked if he's a theocratic?
I wouldn't be shocked if he had been at some point in the past.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
By an organization like CBS's Face The Nation? I don't remember anything like that, and google doesn't seem to come with anything like that either. Only thing that comes up are people complaining when Chris Matthews called him that while referencing a clip from Bill O'Reilly's interview with Santorum.
So frustrating. Iraq was a real problem that Republicans created out of nothing and democrats wanted to fix. Benghazi is a very transparent political ploy to take a real, non-political tragedy and transform it with misinformation and conspiracy theories to create something out of nothing to gen up support.
It makes me wonder where the hell Republicans would be without these bullshit false equivalencies to hide behind.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
FYI Eli Lake and Josh Rogin , at the daily beast seem to be mouth pieces for neocons. The new judith millers if you will.
Some of their hits
This Boko Haram Hilary story
Legion of doom terrorist phone call
Kerry's Apartheid comments (Rogan snuck into the meeting btw, all for a 'scoop' which wasn't a scoop but a way to create fake controversy )
Bunch of misleading Benghazi stories.
The Pollard for peace story a few weeks back
They serve as the mainstream way for the neocons to inject their narrative into the mainstream media which a sense of legitimacy. See how many times you read a story based of an anonymous source to which their contribution amounts to conjecture or add nothing but 'colors' the story to fit 'the black and white' view pushed by the Kristols of the world.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/eli-lake.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/josh-rogin.html
Some sample articles
CIA Contractor Testimony Could Undermine Obama on Benghazi
General: We Did Nothing In Benghazi
Jihadists Now Run Secret U.S. Base
Boko Haram's Bin Laden Connection
Obama Has 4 Days to Stop Putin in Crimea
Israel Trolls Iran
Exclusive: U.S. Intercepted Al Qaeda's 'Legion of Doom' Conference Call
They're not hacks and produce good reporting but their overall thrust and subject of their reporting seems extremely biased.
Some of their hits
This Boko Haram Hilary story
Legion of doom terrorist phone call
Kerry's Apartheid comments (Rogan snuck into the meeting btw, all for a 'scoop' which wasn't a scoop but a way to create fake controversy )
Bunch of misleading Benghazi stories.
The Pollard for peace story a few weeks back
They serve as the mainstream way for the neocons to inject their narrative into the mainstream media which a sense of legitimacy. See how many times you read a story based of an anonymous source to which their contribution amounts to conjecture or add nothing but 'colors' the story to fit 'the black and white' view pushed by the Kristols of the world.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/eli-lake.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/josh-rogin.html
Some sample articles
CIA Contractor Testimony Could Undermine Obama on Benghazi
General: We Did Nothing In Benghazi
Jihadists Now Run Secret U.S. Base
Boko Haram's Bin Laden Connection
Obama Has 4 Days to Stop Putin in Crimea
Israel Trolls Iran
Exclusive: U.S. Intercepted Al Qaeda's 'Legion of Doom' Conference Call
They're not hacks and produce good reporting but their overall thrust and subject of their reporting seems extremely biased.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I agree with that, deny the legitimacy of monopoly corporations to own people.
Fortunately, that doesn't happen in western society, or anywhere else for that matter.
There are governments that own people, sure, but the only example I can think of is North Korea and similar dictatorships. Because if you can leave a nation, you cannot in good faith argue that said nation owns you.
eBay Huckster
Member
Seems like you agree, so I am right.
I was actually going to dispute it... until I remembered how gross I feel if mine gets past a certain length of stubble.
oh man, if Hagel actually overturns that ban my partner's life might get several orders of magnitude easier
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked