PDA

View Full Version : For small government types




tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 12:36 AM
Can you outline your set of moral laws to govern human interaction, especially forceful interaction, which apply to all men equally (i.e., no "Mr. Smith was born specially exempt"), do not ultimately reduce to "might makes right" (i.e., no "Only whoever has the most guns is exempt"), and allow for the possibility of government as we know it?

I don't think it's possible, but I'm interested in ideas.

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 08:45 AM
Let me give a straw man example, just to clarify what I am talking about.

Suppose ones morality is: "One must always obey the law, unless that law requires you to harm another person."

Now, the question is, what defines the law?

Suppose the answer is, "The U.S. constitution, and legitimate laws which do not violate it"

Now, the question is, what makes the U.S. Constitution uniquely the law? What if I and my buddies on my street were to write our own constitution -- would the rest of people on our street be required to obey that, and no longer required to obey U.S. law? Or heck, just my own household could create its own special constitution.

Here are a few possible answers:

A) "No, because the U.S. Constitution existed first"

B) "No, because the drafters of the U.S. constitution were special humans, you're not"

C) "No, because the police supporting US law are bigger and tougher, and will bust you up. You have to win a war first"


Responses would be:

A) So, how exactly did the US split from Britian, under that principle? Should we be under British rule, since that was older -- or Roman rule for that matter?

This contradicts the original idea that the U.S. constitution is legitimate -- self contradictory.

B) Violates rule 1 -- special humans by birth

C) Violates rule 2 -- might makes right

angelatc
06-16-2009, 10:11 AM
Are you an anarchist?

If so, you're not acknowledging the free will of others. It's as much as a Utopian philosophy as socialism.

Yes, nobody has the natural right to force you to do anything, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so. Even the most primitive men lived in tribes. Why do you think that was?

Indy Vidual
06-16-2009, 10:21 AM
Can we first, move in the right direction, and maybe, someday talk about "extremely small government" vs. "Utopian free markets?"

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Are you an anarchist?

If so, you're not acknowledging the free will of others. It's as much as a Utopian philosophy as socialism.

Yes, nobody has the natural right to force you to do anything, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so. Even the most primitive men lived in tribes. Why do you think that was?

I'm a voluntaryist. Basically, my political philosophy can be summed up by the Non Agression Principle: It is always immoral to use violence against a peaceful person who has not harmed others -- that is, the only justifiable force is in self defense or defense of innocents. How you believe I am not acknowledging the free will of others?

I'm happy that you agree no one has the natural right to use agressive force. I'm not talking about power, I'm talking about morality. Obviously others do have the power to use agressive violence, and unfortunately exercise that power. My interest is in determining what is right, and then doing my best to work for it, against such people if necessary.

The most primitive men also enslaved each other, for the same reason: the acceptance of agressive violence, and the idea that might=right. Thankfully, we've recognized the immorality of slavery, and have moved away from it. I am confident that we can move away from other forms of agressive violence as well, at least on a systematic level, for the same reasons.

I have no problem with a gradualist approach, and political activity, but I assume, based on your point regarding "natural rights", that you agree with me regarding the ultimate goal.

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 11:09 AM
Can we first, move in the right direction, and maybe, someday talk about "extremely small government" vs. "Utopian free markets?"

I don't know where you get Utopian from, I certainly don't think things will be perfect under any system. There will always be people prone to violence and seeking power over others. I just don't propose we put them in government and pretend they're legitimate ;).

I think it's worth having the conversation, heck, if we can take the time to talk about sports, we can think about these issues. I don't consider small government types my enemies though, especially in the current political environment, if that's what you're getting at. I support RP after all :). More freedom is better than less freedom.

Theocrat
06-16-2009, 11:58 AM
Can you outline your set of moral laws to govern human interaction, especially forceful interaction, which apply to all men equally (i.e., no "Mr. Smith was born specially exempt"), do not ultimately reduce to "might makes right" (i.e., no "Only whoever has the most guns is exempt"), and allow for the possibility of government as we know it?

I don't think it's possible, but I'm interested in ideas.

If you want me to give an answer to your question as a "minarchist," then you first must justify your parameters. In other words, you have to explain why egalitarianism is a good end within society ("apply to all men equally"), and why appeal to the majority or force ("might makes right") is an evil end in every single case within society.

fisharmor
06-16-2009, 12:38 PM
Can you outline your set of moral laws to govern human interaction, especially forceful interaction, which apply to all men equally (i.e., no "Mr. Smith was born specially exempt"), do not ultimately reduce to "might makes right" (i.e., no "Only whoever has the most guns is exempt"), and allow for the possibility of government as we know it?

I don't think it's possible, but I'm interested in ideas.

To answer directly: no, I can not do this within your parameters.
The caveats being 1) government as we know it is substantially different from government as it is formally defined, and 2) I have no interest in allowing for government as we know it: only government as it is formally defined.

I fully realize that expecting people in power to follow the rules is a pipe dream. I realize that eradicating the power and the rules is the only way to eliminate the problem. I'm just not convinced yet.

Of course, I'm also not well read on the topic. There's a possibility I'll get to talk to David Friedman next month. Maybe I'll ask him which book I should read first.

But you have to remember that all the good arguments in the world don't make anarcho-capitalism less the crazy talk that people think it is. I'm actually doing research and I can't grasp it. What hope does the American Idol crowd have?

angelatc
06-16-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm a voluntaryist. Basically, my political philosophy can be summed up by the Non Agression Principle: It is always immoral to use violence against a peaceful person who has not harmed others -- that is, the only justifiable force is in self defense or defense of innocents. How you believe I am not acknowledging the free will of others?

I'm happy that you agree no one has the natural right to use agressive force. I'm not talking about power, I'm talking about morality. Obviously others do have the power to use agressive violence, and unfortunately exercise that power. My interest is in determining what is right, and then doing my best to work for it, against such people if necessary.

The most primitive men also enslaved each other, for the same reason: the acceptance of agressive violence, and the idea that might=right. Thankfully, we've recognized the immorality of slavery, and have moved away from it. I am confident that we can move away from other forms of agressive violence as well, at least on a systematic level, for the same reasons.

I have no problem with a gradualist approach, and political activity, but I assume, based on your point regarding "natural rights", that you agree with me regarding the ultimate goal.

I am much more interested in short term goals, than some unachievable Utopian vision.

Sorry, but you simply cannot change the nature of man.

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 12:57 PM
If you want me to give an answer to your question as a "minarchist," then you first must justify your parameters. In other words, you have to explain why egalitarianism is a good end within society ("apply to all men equally"), and why appeal to the majority or force ("might makes right") is an evil end in every single case within society.

The only violation of "all men equally" would be to propose that some men, at birth, are exempt from moral laws which apply to others. This seems absurd to me, as the moral law is above all men. If you believe men become qualified for moral exceptions through some process or selection, it is not a violation of this rule, although I will probably disagree with you.

Might makes right is no system of morality regarding power, because it cannot recognize any existing power as immoral. It basically precludes reform -- I tend to prefer resistance to powerful Hitler types, not assistance to them. I am not interested in the idea that one can obtain exceptions to moral laws by buying rocket launchers. It's impotent even as a judge of actions, because during a war, or even peaceful political upheaval, one cannot know which side will win -- but might makes right retroactively determines that the winner was moral and the loser immoral. It's wrong to rebel -- unless you win, then it was right.

If you disagree with them, I suppose your morality does not fit the parameters I'm asking for. I don't think many people are going to support the idea that, "it is moral for Mr. XYZ to kill and steal, simply because of his genes", or "it is moral for Mr. XYZ to kill and steal because he can". I would think these parameters would be no-brainers.

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 01:26 PM
I am much more interested in short term goals, than some unachievable Utopian vision.


Again, I do not think things can ever be perfect, I am not proposing a utopia, I am only proposing that we stop instiuting obvious immorality ourselves. If you do not believe it is immoral, I invite you to describe your moral code to me in the context above.



Sorry, but you simply cannot change the nature of man.


Hmm, it appears some from the slaveholding south agree with you:

From 1852, pro slavery author William Harper:

"The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society."

Apparently, "Like nearly every other defender of slavery before 1840, Harper nominally conceded that slavery, at an abstract level, did constitute a sort of (necessary) moral evil."

Well, I guess we'll always have slaves. Might as well not fight it, just embrace it. It's inherent to society and the nature of man, so we may as well maintain it as an institution.

tremendoustie
06-16-2009, 01:36 PM
To answer directly: no, I can not do this within your parameters.
The caveats being 1) government as we know it is substantially different from government as it is formally defined, and 2) I have no interest in allowing for government as we know it: only government as it is formally defined.

I fully realize that expecting people in power to follow the rules is a pipe dream. I realize that eradicating the power and the rules is the only way to eliminate the problem. I'm just not convinced yet.

Of course, I'm also not well read on the topic. There's a possibility I'll get to talk to David Friedman next month. Maybe I'll ask him which book I should read first.

But you have to remember that all the good arguments in the world don't make anarcho-capitalism less the crazy talk that people think it is. I'm actually doing research and I can't grasp it. What hope does the American Idol crowd have?

How about government as formally defined then? By "as we know it", I did not intend to imply, "like our current government", just meant it in a "life as we know it" sense, you know, not redefining government entirely. I should have more carefully chosen my words. ;)

One has to determine what is right, then determine how to get there. You don't decide to go to the grocers when you need an oil change, because it's closer. That said, I support gradualist approaches (stroll past the grocers on the way to the auto shop), and political activity, to try to help appeal to the "American Idol crowd". I also think we can make great strides just by pointing out the gun in the room, so to speak -- pointing out that the government operates on the routine basis of threatening violence against peaceful people. I know that gets a lot of people to think.