If Russia can get it right, why can't we?

[T.Lex]

Obamacare is legislation. Legislation is not carved in stone, but something closer in consistency to sand.

Again, the answer is the election process. We elect more people that will vote to repeal it, and it'll get repealed. If we don't, then it is democracy in action.

The system is the solution. (Until it isn't.) <-- that is as close as I'll get to the line

 

[Lupin3rd]

Indeed, I do.

The opposite assertion is anarchy and no social order whatsoever.

In an Hegelian dialectic kind of way, by combining the 2 premises, we end up with the government we deserve.

You misuse the word anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy that legitimate law and order is a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process via removing the monopoly of force. No social order whatsoever happens to be nihilism.

 

[Lupin3rd]

I've run into the voluntaryists before. As unrealistic and ignorant (as in ignoring, not unknowing) of reality as the socialists and their version of utopia.

EDIT: I'd argue you already have voluntary anyway. You are here voluntarily, and as such have agreed to abide by the norms and mores and laws of the society. If you are free to leave, it is voluntary.

Ah... Social Contract Theory. Everyone keeps referring to some contract I've somehow agreed to but I can never recall signing anything in that nature.

 

[T.Lex]

You misuse the word anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy that legitimate law and order is a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process via removing the monopoly of force. No social order whatsoever happens to be nihilism.

Well, my poli sci degree is about 20 years old, but the typical definition of "anarchy" is the lack of formal government. Having read some "nihilist" literature (some in Russian) that it is more a philosophy that calls for the destruction of social structure and entities.

They can be related, but not necessarily. You can be a pacifist anarchist (advocating against any gov't action at all), but I don't see how you can be a pacifist nihilist (unless you're doing it wrong).

I would say the form of gov't that can best be described as "bottom-up" process is democracy. The old cliche, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

If you're talking about some sort of modern revisionist version of anarchy as a political movement, you may be right. And, as I'm sure you would agree, definitions are important.

 

[Lupin3rd]

Well, my poli sci degree is about 20 years old, but the typical definition of "anarchy" is the lack of formal government. Having read some "nihilist" literature (some in Russian) that it is more a philosophy that calls for the destruction of social structure and entities.

They can be related, but not necessarily. You can be a pacifist anarchist (advocating against any gov't action at all), but I don't see how you can be a pacifist nihilist (unless you're doing it wrong).

I would say the form of gov't that can best be described as "bottom-up" process is democracy. The old cliche, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

If you're talking about some sort of modern revisionist version of anarchy as a political movement, you may be right. And, as I'm sure you would agree, definitions are important.

Granted that democracy is more bottom-up than most government systems, it is still not a bottom-up process. Democracy doesn't address the problem of there being a ruling class. All it has done is increase the size of the ruling class group. The other problem that democracy hasn't addressed is the monopoly of force problem. No matter what kinds of checks or balances have been put into place, the government still has many more guns than you do. Effectively, the only thing that prevents the government from using them is the government (absolutely NO conflict of interest there). You can check and balance it all you want but political power is a moth to a flame for sociopaths and it's not long before you get collusion (I mean bipartisanship).

 

[T.Lex]

Granted that democracy is more bottom-up than most government systems, it is still not a bottom-up process. Democracy doesn't address the problem of there being a ruling class. All it has done is increase the size of the ruling class group. The other problem that democracy hasn't addressed is the monopoly of force problem. No matter what kinds of checks or balances have been put into place, the government still has many more guns than you do. Effectively, the only thing that prevents the government from using them is the government (absolutely NO conflict of interest there). You can check and balance it all you want but political power is a moth to a flame for sociopaths and it's not long before you get collusion (I mean bipartisanship).

Yeah, I don't disagree.

But, we also have to acknowledge human nature - both the need to be led, and the desire of some people to lead.

I think the futility of anarchy as a form of gov't is proven by the fact that no such system of "government" (I can't bring myself to call the lack of organized government a government) has ever exceeded a very small, homogenous population. Basically, you're talking an extended family unit or tribe that just kinda gets along.

People - civilizations - societies really need gov't. It is a variation of, "It is good that God created man, otherwise man would surely have created God." Where humans do not intentionally establish government, it evolves from tradition and ambition.

IMHO.

 

[Lupin3rd]

Yeah, I don't disagree.

But, we also have to acknowledge human nature - both the need to be led, and the desire of some people to lead.

I think the futility of anarchy as a form of gov't is proven by the fact that no such system of "government" (I can't bring myself to call the lack of organized government a government) has ever exceeded a very small, homogenous population. Basically, you're talking an extended family unit or tribe that just kinda gets along.

People - civilizations - societies really need gov't. It is a variation of, "It is good that God created man, otherwise man would surely have created God." Where humans do not intentionally establish government, it evolves from tradition and ambition.

IMHO.

If we are to base arguments on the natural state of man then why democracy? Humans have only experienced liberty very recently. The natural state of man is to be bound and enslaved by tyrants, coerced by the very armies intended to protect them. Are we to base our morality on the past and our collective experiences or on principle?

 

[T.Lex]

Or on principles that might actually work?

At least in a democracy, people are supposed to feel invested in the operation of gov't. The US remains a kind of "grand experiment." We still don't know how well it will work in the long run, only that it seems to be the best option currently available.

(The US is the worst gov't in the world, except for all the other gov'ts in the world.)

Although, having been involved in local politics, I can tell you that sometimes it seems closer to your anarchic model than actual democracy.

I disagree with your premise that the natural state of man is to be enslaved. I think the natural state is pure liberty, in solitude. It is when man gathers in groups that the issues come up of competing interests. Once people are more tied to their personal interests than the liberty interest of others, conflicts occur. In the context of those conflicts, without some sort of external control on behavior, we get back to the might-makes-right issue.

 

[poptab]

Tlex I found something you might want to read.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/twen...sm-is-radical-and-radically-incoherent-theory

 

[T.Lex]

hahaha

Indeed - that is interesting. And with some thought-inspiring suggestions, but also more than a few strawmen arguments.

A few points, in no particular order:
"...it is not radicalism per se that is a problem with any given socio-economic doctrine..." - indeed, radical ideas, over time, often become the foundation of better ideas. Radicalism, somewhat, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't reject "anarcho-capitalism" because it is radical, I reject it because I don't think it works on anything other than a micro scale.

"That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly."
- I dislike it when people (especially people who should know better) use "social contract" or "social compact" as if it were truly a modern contract, with signature lines, etc. It is not that. It is an idea that describes the general notion of how societies operate.

"That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor."
- That's what free elections are for. An opportunity for a peaceful revolution every 4 years or so (check local listings).

"That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine."
- The link to Occam's Razor isn't clear to me. Moreover, it is not a "single group" of individuals, USian gov't is an ever-changing group of individuals that we elect to their positions of power.

"That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."
- Of course, I disagree with this. I personally don't think there is any subject that lies beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. In fact, I very much enjoy having these kinds of discussions with people (such as are participating in this discussion), who present rational, principled reasons for their beliefs.

Marketplace of ideas, baybee.

If there's any one of his assertions that is particularly interesting to you, post it!

 

[poptab]

A few points, in no particular order:
"...it is not radicalism per se that is a problem with any given socio-economic doctrine..." - indeed, radical ideas, over time, often become the foundation of better ideas. Radicalism, somewhat, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't reject "anarcho-capitalism" because it is radical, I reject it because I don't think it works on anything other than a micro scale.

So you think the current system works well? Everything the government does is constitutional if the scotus says so?

"That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly."
- I dislike it when people (especially people who should know better) use "social contract" or "social compact" as if it were truly a modern contract, with signature lines, etc. It is not that. It is an idea that describes the general notion of how societies operate.

I dont think your objection really applies to what he is saying here. But I dont think this was one of the better points so...

"That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor."
- That's what free elections are for. An opportunity for a peaceful revolution every 4 years or so (check local listings).

That might be reassuring if I thought my vote actually counted. I am certainly not the one counting votes.

"That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine."
- The link to Occam's Razor isn't clear to me. Moreover, it is not a "single group" of individuals, USian gov't is an ever-changing group of individuals that we elect to their positions of power.

It took me awhile to figure out what he was saying as well. Sadly I am terrible at explanations. Individuals keep individuals in check without the state.

"That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."
- Of course, I disagree with this. I personally don't think there is any subject that lies beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. In fact, I very much enjoy having these kinds of discussions with people (such as are participating in this discussion), who present rational, principled reasons for their beliefs.

I wouldnt be posting here if I didnt like discussion.

I think the majority of the points he makes as I understand them are quite poignant.

I will pick one many fall afoul of:
That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageousness of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.

 

[T.Lex]

So you think the current system works well? Everything the government does is constitutional if the scotus says so?

Well, SCOTUS is the entity charged with deciding what is constitutional or not, so yes, by definition, if SCOTUS says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional.

Now, our constitution is a written document. Like any written document (or work of art) it is subject to interpretation by individuals. We all have different perspectives, different interests, and different biases. Generally, I think the SCOTUS, whose justices have spent years learning the skills necessary to be objective, gets it right. I don't always agree, but their answers are usually principled.

Individuals keep individuals in check without the state.

If that's what he's saying, then I agree - in the context of small homogenous groups. But even then, I would say that there is a "social compact" at work, where the ground rules are commonly understood and there is a "peer pressure" to "do the right thing."

That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageousness of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.

haha

Yeah, I thought that was a good rhetorical flourish. The problem with it, though, IMHO, is that it mis-states the point about the prevalence of statism. It isn't that statism is "better" or "worse" than the alternatives (however you want to define better/worse), it just recognizes the reality that the course of human interaction creates some kind of statism.

Now, I do think statism is prevalent because as a group of humans grow, there becomes a need for some kind of "blueprint" for interactions. Getting people to adhere to it involves positive and negative reinforcement. You play by the rules, people like you, do business with you, everybody does better. You break the rules, and bad things happen. As humans, negative reinforcement is often more immediate and... motivational than positive.

So, within a tribe, we have cows that we use for the good of the entire tribe. Well, if you kill a cow for your own personal benefit, breaking a rule (either explicit or implicit), you will be punished somehow. As I understand it, that would be the coercion of statism.

 

[poptab]

I dont agree that just because the scotus says something is constitutional then its constitutional. If the constitution is open to interpretation then it can mean anything. If it can mean anything then it means nothing. I do not think the constitution has authorized the government that we have had but it has failed to prevent it. I think the experiment has failed. I think we would have been much better off with the articles of confederation if anything and I think history supports this conclusion.

 

[sgtonory]

Flat tax is as bad as fair tax and both are theft no matter how flat or fair.

Amen! All taxes are theft!

 

[T.Lex]

I dont agree that just because the scotus says something is constitutional then its constitutional.

But that is what the constitution says.

If the constitution is open to interpretation then it can mean anything.

See, that rhetoric goes too far; it is way too absolutist. Saying something is fruit can mean it is either an apple or an orange. It does not mean it is a vegetable.

I think the experiment has failed. I think we would have been much better off with the articles of confederation if anything and I think history supports this conclusion.

I'm interested in what historical evidence there is to support the idea that we would have been better off with the AoC. Clearly, the men of the time thought that it was inadequate - because they ditched it and created the constitution.

I think what you are saying is that it would be great if the AoC had actually worked. I agree. It would be utopian if everyone just kind of got along. But, 2 things:
1) Even the AoC was a manifestation of statism; and,
2) The vision of people just kind of getting along is remarkably close to Marx's formulation of socialism. And no, I'm not trying to use labels to invite emotional responses. Keep in mind, when Marx (an economist) described the arc of societies, after a couple generations of "communism" people would be used to acting "for the greater good" and the organs of state coercion would eventually fall away.

(It has been a long time since I read Marx, but that's the gist of it.)

 

[poptab]

But that is what the constitution says.

It does? You think the framers of the constitution imagined the federal government would become what it is today? The antifederalists warned about the dangers of the constitution but their warnings were disregarded or not properly countered.

See, that rhetoric goes too far; it is way too absolutist. Saying something is fruit can mean it is either an apple or an orange. It does not mean it is a vegetable.

Regardless of whether you want to call it an apple or an orange I am pointing out the obvious fact that the fruit is rotten.

I'm interested in what historical evidence there is to support the idea that we would have been better off with the AoC. Clearly, the men of the time thought that it was inadequate - because they ditched it and created the constitution.

A couple of men decided for the entire nation to ditch the AoC. Why do you think John Lansing Jr. left and never returned to the constitutional convention? He explained himself saying that the convention had exceeded its authority and that the proposed "consolidated government" would be dangerous to the liberties of the people. There were a total of 16 delegates who didnt sign the constitution.

I think what you are saying is that it would be great if the AoC had actually worked. I agree. It would be utopian if everyone just kind of got along. But, 2 things:
1) Even the AoC was a manifestation of statism; and,
2) The vision of people just kind of getting along is remarkably close to Marx's formulation of socialism. And no, I'm not trying to use labels to invite emotional responses. Keep in mind, when Marx (an economist) described the arc of societies, after a couple generations of "communism" people would be used to acting "for the greater good" and the organs of state coercion would eventually fall away.

(It has been a long time since I read Marx, but that's the gist of it.)

reserved.

 

[T.Lex]

It does? You think the framers of the constitution imagined the federal government would become what it is today? The antifederalists warned about the dangers of the constitution but their warnings were disregarded or not properly countered.

Oh - I have little doubt that they'd be VERY surprised by a great many things in the modern era. They'd probably also be surprised that we lasted as long as we have!

But, one thing they would probably agree on is that SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional or not.

Regardless of whether you want to call it an apple or an orange I am pointing out the obvious fact that the fruit is rotten.

Again with the rhetoric. No human system is perfect. I just believe we have the best system available.

A couple of men decided for the entire nation to ditch the AoC. Why do you think John Lansing Jr. left and never returned to the constitutional convention? He explained himself saying that the convention had exceeded its authority and that the proposed "consolidated government" would be dangerous to the liberties of the people. There were a total of 16 delegates who didnt sign the constitution.

Right, but it was still properly ratified. The AoC didn't work - couldn't work.

I do not claim to know everything - but what is the historical support for the proposition that the AoC was better than the constitution? Those who were for the AoC speculated, but that's hardly historical support that it would have been better. Different, sure. No standing army, state's seceding and joining as they wished. Certainly not a "united" states of America.

 

[poptab]

I posted what i had written but i ran out time. I will complete my response later hence the 'reserved' comment.

 

[T.Lex]

No worries. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be on, so I posted my instant responses.

(I have a friend on another forum who often uses "rfe" (reserved for edit) and I usually jump the post on him, too.)