NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't know why we do this every few days. Defend democractic governance (as in democracy) and the state from Benji's ideas.
-
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
benjipwns
Banned
I can't respond because you don't define any of your terms. Who is "we" and what does "end" mean? What entails the "police"?
Since it's been asked I'll go over this again:
You seem to be under the impression that I'm making an utopian central prescription for all things which is a common fault made by intelligent designers or creationists.
All I advocate for is the recognition that the legitimacy of the state is entirely yours to withdraw and the acknowledgement that it is a proxy for your own violence against others. That in reality it is no different from any other corporation and we already do live in a state of anarchy with multiple corporations making competing claims on legitimacy. For example, the United States and ISIL are having a disagreement over ISIL's legitimacy as a corporation granted ascension into recognition by the others as owning a territory and the citizens within it. There is nothing magical to that recognition nor the denial of that recognition that is not possessed by those who make up the shareholders of the corporation. Corporations, "states" or not, do not possess powers or rights beyond those which the individuals which make them up do.
It's a moral argument, not a utilitarian or utopian one. But to be fair, I am far more pacifist than many of my fellow travelers.
Since it's been asked I'll go over this again:
You seem to be under the impression that I'm making an utopian central prescription for all things which is a common fault made by intelligent designers or creationists.
All I advocate for is the recognition that the legitimacy of the state is entirely yours to withdraw and the acknowledgement that it is a proxy for your own violence against others. That in reality it is no different from any other corporation and we already do live in a state of anarchy with multiple corporations making competing claims on legitimacy. For example, the United States and ISIL are having a disagreement over ISIL's legitimacy as a corporation granted ascension into recognition by the others as owning a territory and the citizens within it. There is nothing magical to that recognition nor the denial of that recognition that is not possessed by those who make up the shareholders of the corporation. Corporations, "states" or not, do not possess powers or rights beyond those which the individuals which make them up do.
It's a moral argument, not a utilitarian or utopian one. But to be fair, I am far more pacifist than many of my fellow travelers.
benjipwns
Banned
Fed/Goldman/Carmen Segarra This American Life report is up:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/TAL536_transcript.pdf
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/TAL536_transcript.pdf
I'm actually interested in how society operates under your rules, which are details that seem extremely thin. You get pretend that we don't acknowledge that force is used and you get to post about all the negatives of the state without acknowledging the positives and it's dreadfully boring. So I want to know how humans behave in benjiland. What kind of things happen when there is no social security, FDA, central bank or whatever.
benjipwns
Banned
Do you mind if I make a thread for the TAL episode? Since you originally posted it.
---
I already just said that I'm not an intelligent designer or creationist. How society operates is not up for me to decide.
What happens currently in places where there is the absence of state coercion? Billions of beneficial voluntary trades that increase our wealth everyday. I see no reason for this to suddenly stop as coercion dissipates.
So when you say "positives" I don't see any. Because we're getting what we'd get anyway, just with unnecessary violence on top. Something that also happens to be quite anti-liberal and anti-democratic. Which is amusing in regards to the language used.
---
I already just said that I'm not an intelligent designer or creationist. How society operates is not up for me to decide.
What happens currently in places where there is the absence of state coercion? Billions of beneficial voluntary trades that increase our wealth everyday. I see no reason for this to suddenly stop as coercion dissipates.
There's only one reality I have access to. I contend it is wrong to use violence against others for personal gain, and on top of that nothing done with violence cannot be done without it in a voluntary manner, and that if the liberal and democratic revolution continues apace out of the Enlightenment that even the reactionary conservative movements of the Progressives, Socialists, Communists, etc. will eventually fall. Not in my lifetime of course.
So when you say "positives" I don't see any. Because we're getting what we'd get anyway, just with unnecessary violence on top. Something that also happens to be quite anti-liberal and anti-democratic. Which is amusing in regards to the language used.
You mean to say billions of voluntary beneficial and destructive trades. Not all trades build wealth, maybe you're unfamiliar with this concept. Seems an error to apply only positives to trade where you apply only negatives to the state.
Usually to advocate another mode of living you'd also be interested in how it might work, but I guess that's not the case.
Usually to advocate another mode of living you'd also be interested in how it might work, but I guess that's not the case.
benjipwns
Banned
All trades build wealth. Even "destructive" trades. Wealth is not merely money or physical assets, capital is wealth, knowledge is wealth.
I don't advocate another mode of living other than I suggest that others not commit violence. Beyond that, the possibilities are infinite and so it's impossible to describe how it would work for every individual.
I don't advocate another mode of living other than I suggest that others not commit violence. Beyond that, the possibilities are infinite and so it's impossible to describe how it would work for every individual.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What does Chelsea's baby mean for 2016?
It seems to me to actually advocate fairy dust and pipe dreams. In our last exchange we covered the violent part where we agreed it takes very little to produce violent behavior. How does benjistate control these people, with ideas, coercion, chain gangs? When an oil spill happens and destroys business on the gulf coast who responds?
You can make the thread if you want.
You can make the thread if you want.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It'll help her with the family values mideast crowd. An all 50 state sweep is now assured.
theprodigy
Member
I don't even know why you guys engage him any more.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There should be a political philosophy ot so we can discuss US politics.
benjipwns
Banned
See, you're still stuck on the intertwined creationist model.
Separate the ethics/morals from any notion of planning. Then discard the latter for evolution.
Yeah, you think they'd have stopped rooting for gang violence after all these absolute demolitions of their moral standing.
More like "US polling"
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Not everyone is familiar with anarcho-capitalism, so it's natural to probe if they are assuming a position along the spectrum of the traditional left/right model.
I don't think that's necessarily creationist. There would be some response to an oil spill. What would it be in the non-state? Describe the emergent phenomena.
Yeah probably. Not too much else going on in here at night though lol so it's easy to scroll past once the news hits during the day.
Well to be fair, what else are we gonna do? Pass a budget?
benjipwns
Banned
I'd reckon the people whose oil it is would probably want to do something about their inventory loss. And I'm sure there's people who would clean up oil for money. And people who might want to do it because they like cleaning up oil. And people who own potentially damaged property would have interests to get involved in some manner. And so on down the line.
Which is what more or less happens now, except that the state establishes a multitude of protections and sets caps on liabilities for oil companies, interferes to establish unchangeable and inflexible "process", and assumes an oversight role discouraging any oversight that would have actual interest in maintaining it. (When the state fails, it gets more business rather than go out of business.) Instead they run drug and prostitution rings, which while a commendable endeavor and should be encouraged, is not technically their job.
Which is what more or less happens now, except that the state establishes a multitude of protections and sets caps on liabilities for oil companies, interferes to establish unchangeable and inflexible "process", and assumes an oversight role discouraging any oversight that would have actual interest in maintaining it. (When the state fails, it gets more business rather than go out of business.) Instead they run drug and prostitution rings, which while a commendable endeavor and should be encouraged, is not technically their job.
How do they get involved? Do they sue? Does the oil conglomerate recognize the courts? I could sell shares in oil conglomerate x but I might not need to if they're diversified enough. If they're doing well enough in fracking or can temporarily offset the spill with reserves they might be fine. Who is paying for the cleanup?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Keep it somewhat with in the confines of US polical reality within the next 100 years?
benjipwns
Banned
How does anyone get involved in anything? By offering their services.
I'm sure the oil companies insurance company would have a series of contracts in place with other insurance companies and dispute resolution companies. Along with all the others who would be seeking damages.
I would imagine the oil companies insurance provider would do most of the direct payment in the immediate time period.
Sure the oil company might be able to offset it temporarily, but why would it be in their best interests to let an oil spill continue unabated? Raises their costs, damages their reputation, might even damage their own property, etc.
I'm sure the oil companies insurance company would have a series of contracts in place with other insurance companies and dispute resolution companies. Along with all the others who would be seeking damages.
I would imagine the oil companies insurance provider would do most of the direct payment in the immediate time period.
Sure the oil company might be able to offset it temporarily, but why would it be in their best interests to let an oil spill continue unabated? Raises their costs, damages their reputation, might even damage their own property, etc.
So no to passing a budget then.
benjipwns
Banned
Well you wouldn't have to let it go unabated. You could get a spill and then continue capturing oil after the pipes have been fixed. A large cap oil company could insure for lost barrels and call it a day. It's not their coastline, not their problem. Who is going to tell them otherwise? I don't see bad press ending companies too often.
Worst case scenario is the elites now out of work with no state and with no scruples are integrated into the megacap corporations, having honed their skills on minorities and people who like to smoke grass, and having read mises and wiped their ass with it a new renaissance era of corruption is upon us. An oil spill is non-event, everybody has had an oil spill at some point, no corp is perfect. The coast should be thankful for all the business, they've been building wealth this whole time. Wealth that transitioned to the coastal dwelling. Sure they can't fish for a little while but someone will come long to fix it.
Worst case scenario is the elites now out of work with no state and with no scruples are integrated into the megacap corporations, having honed their skills on minorities and people who like to smoke grass, and having read mises and wiped their ass with it a new renaissance era of corruption is upon us. An oil spill is non-event, everybody has had an oil spill at some point, no corp is perfect. The coast should be thankful for all the business, they've been building wealth this whole time. Wealth that transitioned to the coastal dwelling. Sure they can't fish for a little while but someone will come long to fix it.
This is of course perhaps events that happen in bizarro world, where human beings have no moral complexity. All actions made by government are negative, even if on the surface they seem altruistic. Private interactions on the other hand are positive always, even if they seem sometimes to be negative. All elites do what is in their own interest all the time, even if on the surface it doesn't seem so in some cases. This failure in human beings is why we need to free them from the state into a world with no centralized power, enforced by the magical forces of mises. Once the state is gone there will be no elites? No there'll be elites but it will be better because they'll respect the principles of non-violence when they have no power, or maybe they won't.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Seriously? You have to be. Everyone else that you recommended reading as following your general philosophy has identified as anarcho-capitalists themselves.
benjipwns
Banned
So your argument is that people are bad or "complex", therefore, it is legitimate for them to use violence against and own others?
Because that's the only question at hand here. If it is legitimate then whether or not it's our current anarchist state of multiple corporations claiming varying monopoly status or an alternative world where there is one single global or galactic monopoly corporation is irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong with being anti-democratic. I think some things should be outside the hands of anyone, you and most everyone else thinks they should be in the control of elites, but we both agree that some things should be outside the democratic process. My system has no enforcement mechanism, I'll contend yours has too much of one.
But it is amusing how upset people seem to get considering, as they always state, they'll always win since they're willing to use violence against others, and voluntaryists (and related) aren't. To the point that they'd much rather debate with Nazi's because at least they agree on violence against cultural enemies!
Because that's the only question at hand here. If it is legitimate then whether or not it's our current anarchist state of multiple corporations claiming varying monopoly status or an alternative world where there is one single global or galactic monopoly corporation is irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong with being anti-democratic. I think some things should be outside the hands of anyone, you and most everyone else thinks they should be in the control of elites, but we both agree that some things should be outside the democratic process. My system has no enforcement mechanism, I'll contend yours has too much of one.
But it is amusing how upset people seem to get considering, as they always state, they'll always win since they're willing to use violence against others, and voluntaryists (and related) aren't. To the point that they'd much rather debate with Nazi's because at least they agree on violence against cultural enemies!
Well, except Bakunin and Kropotkin and Mises and Hayek.
My argument would be that people are complex. Some "good", some "bad" relatively and that it's difficult to say why in most cases. Which is not compatible with the nebulous concept that all government action is negative and greed driven which seems to pervade your posting. If the elites are all trying to subjugate the lower classes then your stateless world is doomed, because there is no way it can exist in any type of stable form while they exist. Maybe you could kill them all.
JesseEwiak
Member
It's amazing libertarianism isn't more popular when you compare basic structures of society as equal to Nazism. But hey, I ain't mad at ya. I'm no more mad at people thinking 6 billion people can live in a world only driven by voluntary actions any more than I'm mad at people thinking 6 billion people can live in a giant commune.
benjipwns
Banned
That has no application to the moral question of the legitimacy. Since people can and do refrain from violence, then violence is not the only method of human interaction. The fact that people may not always refrain from violence does not justify the violence.
And I contend that the basic structures of society are things other than government.
I was riffing on APK's earlier joke.
And I contend that the basic structures of society are things other than government.
See, you're not an anarchist or a libertarian, you're a Quaker.
I agree that violence is always wrong even if implicit in a system or universe. But I perceive that it is not always the greater evil and I reject the idea that a failure to act is less morally culpable than an equally immoral action. Therefore it seems to me that, in situations where a greater evil will result, violence may be justified.
Ok? There's plenty of things I don't think are morally legitimate that people do and do not refrain from. I think even Hayek agrees although he unfortunately gets eaten alive by fundamentalists for it. http://mises.org/daily/2649
They happen anyway with or without the state, but the state has policies for violence that involve concrete things (good and bad, like the people in it). What does the non-state have? The principle of violence being illegitimate is not a panacea. It's window dressing without showing how it manifests itself.
benjipwns
Banned
Who said it was?
Feeding the poor and healing the sick.
benjipwns
Banned
So hypothetically you'd consider it justified to conscript doctors?
I guess I was confused. What do the violent, coercive elites do once they enter into the non-state?
Sure. Isn't your argument that we already do this with price controls? I obviously have no problem with that.
benjipwns
Banned
And that's the moral disconnect I've been trying to explain to East Lake. I can't consider slavery to be justified under any circumstances.
This isn't anything to do with "practical" concerns because it's based entirely around a select group of moral questions. So I don't really understand why people keep trying to convince me on some utilitarian grounds. I try to explain the unbridgeable gap (and how my position is merely a moral one, not a utopian plan) and then it's my fault for the thread not talking about the latest poll from Iowa instead.
See the violence inherent in the system!
This isn't anything to do with "practical" concerns because it's based entirely around a select group of moral questions. So I don't really understand why people keep trying to convince me on some utilitarian grounds. I try to explain the unbridgeable gap (and how my position is merely a moral one, not a utopian plan) and then it's my fault for the thread not talking about the latest poll from Iowa instead.
See the violence inherent in the system!
What if the alternative is to enslave a larger group of people?
I don't think there's much of a moral disconnect to be honest. People here ascribe a lot of importance to non-violent coercion as well, which is something that could explode with no state. People are easily coerced to kill, and can easily be coerced to do destructive non-violent things. If you haven't watched the Milgram experiment watch it as the people keep upping the voltage as the patient screams cause someone with a stern voice told them to. It would seem that if you seriously wanted a non-state it would pay to know what is going on here because it might turn into some kind of savage, cutthroat world of corporate masters who are still extremely violent even though they read the right books in high school.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, our current state of anarchy with billions of people living lives they never could've under "voluntary" action, because voluntarism would lead to us "voluntarily" following the people with the most guns. And they wouldn't be imaginary guns pointed at you for not paying taxes, they'd be actual guns, with bullets.
benjipwns
Banned
Anarchy doesn't mean an absence of rules.
I don't know why you keep ascribing to me some supposed "system" or whatever that I'm apparently trying to impose. The only time I have come close to outlining anything resembling a system was responding to your oil spill hypothetical.
I don't know why you keep ascribing to me some supposed "system" or whatever that I'm apparently trying to impose. The only time I have come close to outlining anything resembling a system was responding to your oil spill hypothetical.
Good to see somebody understands.
The system as far as I can tell is to repeat that non-violence is the key and that's the end of it. Of course knowing that people are violent a particular ideology would have to take the next step and create some kind of "system" to control it. Rules. Enforcement. Practical steps to make sure the serfs aren't tossed into some sort of advanced labor meat grinder.
JesseEwiak
Member
Come on, if you can't afford to voluntarily pay for protection, you can voluntarily choose to either watch either your wife get raped or your house get burned down.
The good example would be Crassus' fire brigade. All voluntary. Non-violent mostly? 
Though still I'm also partial to my alternative to Bane's attack on Gotham, where instead of threatening to nuke Gotham I merely drop bed bugs on it with planes and helicopters from some foreign corp I funneled money into as a boon for my pest extermination business. Creates jobs just like an oil spill would. Building wealth one bed bug at a time.
Though still I'm also partial to my alternative to Bane's attack on Gotham, where instead of threatening to nuke Gotham I merely drop bed bugs on it with planes and helicopters from some foreign corp I funneled money into as a boon for my pest extermination business. Creates jobs just like an oil spill would. Building wealth one bed bug at a time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked