The Decline of Violence

[Kshartle]

With the puppy question, you want me down to these two options:

Yes -"Ohhhhh wow your sense of right and wrong doesn't extend to the public torture of helpless cute animals, you are obviously a whack job libertarian nutcase"

No - "Wait wait, I thought I OWNED the puppy and it's my PROPERTY and no one has a right to tell me what to do with my PROPERTY"

the correct answer is.... you live in N Korea and you should tell your neighbor that he shouldn't torture the puppies because it ruins the taste... 

N Korea, the bastion of non-violence. How's that working out for them? bwahahahahaha......that silly Plinker.

North Korea is so poor because the violation of human rights is official policy. Ohh wait, the people "chose" it so it must be good right.

Do you guys even read some of the stuff you write? 

[moda0306]

Imagine Kshartle was the landed farmer and I am a rancher. Kshartle comes in and starts staking claim to my prime grazing land claiming that it wasnt being used or whatever and it is now his. Based on the way this argument is going does anyone doubt that we wouldn't need a government to get involved to arbitrate this dispute? I don't think of myself as a violent person, but I don't think I could listen to Kshartle very long before I picked up something heavy and swung it at him. So there you go, I just disproved his whole argument. People (i consider myself one) can't solve problems in a rational way without violence and there better be somebody stronger than both of us that will keep us apart.

You proved my argument. You state that the only way to prevent the violent settling of the dispute is to have settled with violence. Your statement is self-detonating. 

Believing that disputes can't be settled without violence is insane. Some can't, that's true. The government however settles ALL claims with violence, or just the overwhelming threat. So like I've always said, it's not violence that you have a problem with, you just like it to be so overwhelming that no one can resist it.

What do you think happens when some people organize into an organization so violent and powerful no one can resist it? Take a guess....

"People (i consider myself one) can't solve problems in a rational way without violence and there better be somebody stronger than both of us that will keep us apart." - with a statement like this are you sure about the underlined part?


Ohh yeah.....how can you "prove" that was your land anyway hmmm? (shout out to Moda  )

There are two issues at play here:

1) Is claiming vast amounts of natural resources as your own a form of "force?'

2) Is government needed and/or valid to help negotiate/arbitrate disputes in land ownership?

[moda0306]

Libertarian666 even pointed out that "wide acceptence" of a use of force was what separated a gang from a government, but STILL claimed government was illegitimate.

Well he's right on both counts then.

If rape had wide acceptence would that make it legitimate?

Apparenly so if 99% thought it was.

(Facepalm)

[Kshartle]

The funny thing about your herder vs farmer example, doodle, is that it's basically how government-run agricultural societies destroyed the stateless societies over the past 10,000 years. It seems to me that the government's "solution" for solving the property dispute you posed was to exterminate the party it didn't favor (the herders).

It's funny also because it just shows the hypocrisy. knives are better than fists.....guns are better than knives....tanks are better than guns.

It's what I've been saying all along. No moral code, just might makes right. Whoever has the biggest gun is the decider of everything. Well then.....don't use the lie that you want the problem of violence solved if your tool is just more of it. It's hypocrisy and contradictory and therefore an easily dominated argument.

[Libertarian666]

Imagine Kshartle was the landed farmer and I am a rancher. Kshartle comes in and starts staking claim to my prime grazing land claiming that it wasnt being used or whatever and it is now his. Based on the way this argument is going does anyone doubt that we wouldn't need a government to get involved to arbitrate this dispute? I don't think of myself as a violent person, but I don't think I could listen to Kshartle very long before I picked up something heavy and swung it at him. So there you go, I just disproved his whole argument. People (i consider myself one) can't solve problems in a rational way without violence and there better be somebody stronger than both of us that will keep us apart.

You proved my argument. You state that the only way to prevent the violent settling of the dispute is to have settled with violence. Your statement is self-detonating. 

Believing that disputes can't be settled without violence is insane. Some can't, that's true. The government however settles ALL claims with violence, or just the overwhelming threat. So like I've always said, it's not violence that you have a problem with, you just like it to be so overwhelming that no one can resist it.

What do you think happens when some people organize into an organization so violent and powerful no one can resist it? Take a guess....

"People (i consider myself one) can't solve problems in a rational way without violence and there better be somebody stronger than both of us that will keep us apart." - with a statement like this are you sure about the underlined part?


Ohh yeah.....how can you "prove" that was your land anyway hmmm? (shout out to Moda  )

Who keeps those "stronger people" apart? People even stronger than them? And what about THOSE people?
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down.

[moda0306]

The funny thing about your herder vs farmer example, doodle, is that it's basically how government-run agricultural societies destroyed the stateless societies over the past 10,000 years. It seems to me that the government's "solution" for solving the property dispute you posed was to exterminate the party it didn't favor (the herders).

It's funny also because it just shows the hypocrisy. knives are better than fists.....guns are better than knives....tanks are better than guns.

It's what I've been saying all along. No moral code, just might makes right. Whoever has the biggest gun is the decider of everything. Well then.....don't use the lie that you want the problem of violence solved if your tool is just more of it. It's hypocrisy and contradictory and therefore an easily dominated argument.

doodle isn't arguing that farmer-run agricultural societies had the "right" to overrun stateless societies.  Simply that property disputes aren't efficiently handled by ever-enraged competitors.

[Pointedstick]

The realpolitik of the issue is that "might makes right" is something we've never escaped. Government just sets itself up as mightiest and then favors those preferred by the people who constitute government. A world without "might makes right" can't really exist as long as humans are humans, IMHO.

Seen in this light, government itself is a functional issue rather than a moral one. Does it lead to better results to have one might monopolist suppress other people's might? Did it in the past? Will it in the future? Etc.

And Tech's question is a good one, too. Who watches the watchman? If my might needs to be suppressed by my local might monopolist, who's keeping HIM in check by suppressing his might? In a hierarchical might-suppression system, eventually someone's at the top...

[Pointedstick]

doodle isn't arguing that farmer-run agricultural societies had the "right" to overrun stateless societies.  Simply that property disputes aren't efficiently handled by ever-enraged competitors.

Their supposed rights were irrelevant when the government-agricultural axis rolled into town. That's how it's been throughout human history. Hiding behind your rights is like trying to make a bulletproof vest out of tissue paper. In order to avoid being crushed, you have ALWAYS needed either some might of your own, or the protection of someone mighty. Always.

[moda0306]

doodle isn't arguing that farmer-run agricultural societies had the "right" to overrun stateless societies.  Simply that property disputes aren't efficiently handled by ever-enraged competitors.

Their supposed rights were irrelevant when the government-agricultural axis rolled into town. That's how it's been throughout human history. Hiding behind your rights is like trying to make a bulletproof vest out of tissue paper. In order to avoid being crushed, you have ALWAYS needed either some might of your own, or the protection of someone mighty. Always.

PS,

Once again, this isn't a functional debate, but a moral one.  We're trying to develop a valid moral framework from which to make moral assertions, not an understanding of the likelihood that those rights are respected in the future.  This is mostly academic.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Once again, this isn't a functional debate, but a moral one.  We're trying to develop a valid moral framework from which to make moral assertions, not an understanding of the likelihood that those rights are respected in the future.  This is mostly academic.

It's impossible, as l8 just said. That's why we're getting nowhere, and it's why I wish Kshartle would drop it. He can't admit that his morality is personal and not universally applicable to everyone, which is making us go in circles.

IMHO the functional discussion is much more interesting. There are persuasive arguments to be made on both sides and it avoids the hurt feelings of having your sense of morality challenged.

[moda0306]

we have gone at it from many angles but some people will not accept "property" until the "which came first property or theft" argument is solved decisively.... it cant be... both are perspectives, the question you never see answered is which perspective works? the "property" perspective may have imperfections but it has a long history of bettering mankind's lot. the other perspective results in confusion, endless contradiction and violence...  of the two results which seems better?

i want to hear how a society that believes theft comes first is going to be organized?  lets hear the resolution to the confusion and the contradictions, one that involves less violence than one where the distinction between violence against property and liberty can be made..

There aren't just two perspectives, Simon.

There can be vastly different interpretations as to what degree my individual sovereignty has a connection to the world around me. 

Further, the "it may have imperfections but it has a long history of bettering mankind's lot" could be said about some models of government, as well.  I'm not saying property is evil. I'm just saying it's an imperfect solution to a problem.  The problem is that we're all stuck here together and have to 1) survive, 2) get along, and 3) hopefully prosper.  Making claims on the world around us is pretty much a necessity for that, but it's messy.  It involves force.  It involves enriching ourselves at the expense of others, and how we go about those claims is clearly debatable, and to pretend it's not is almost embarassing to try to debate.  Hell, libertarians can't even agree with each other with exactly how we are linked to the world around us.

EDIT:

I know a couple people that are very small-government libertarians, but they don't think the market efficiently sorts out pollution at all, and see this as a function of government to price externalities and regulate land-use.  Now you could call them not "true libertarians," but it still illustrates that people who have a strong instinctual tendency to recognize private property have a VASTLY different idea of what that claim represents than someone who is an anarcho-libertarian, or someone who might be an industrialist.

[moda0306]

PS,

Once again, this isn't a functional debate, but a moral one.  We're trying to develop a valid moral framework from which to make moral assertions, not an understanding of the likelihood that those rights are respected in the future.  This is mostly academic.

It's impossible, as l8 just said. That's why we're getting nowhere, and it's why I wish Kshartle would drop it. He can't admit that his morality is personal and not universally applicable to everyone, which is making us go in circles.

IMHO the functional discussion is much more interesting. There are persuasive arguments to be made on both sides and it avoids the hurt feelings of having your sense of morality challenged.

It's a little easier to have functional debates with people like yourself who realize that morality is a b!tch to prove, rather than moralize from a pedestal about "theft" and "force." 

And it's even harder if they think the US is a crumbling socialist empire and China is a booming mixed economy .

[moda0306]

we have gone at it from many angles but some people will not accept "property" until the "which came first property or theft" argument is solved decisively.... it cant be... both are perspectives, the question you never see answered is which perspective works? the "property" perspective may have imperfections but it has a long history of bettering mankind's lot. the other perspective results in confusion, endless contradiction and violence...  of the two results which seems better?

i want to hear how a society that believes theft comes first is going to be organized?  lets hear the resolution to the confusion and the contradictions, one that involves less violence than one where the distinction between violence against property and liberty can be made..

There aren't just two perspectives, l82.

There can be vastly different interpretations as to what degree my individual sovereignty has a connection to the world around me. 

Further, the "it may have imperfections but it has a long history of bettering mankind's lot" could be said about some models of government, as well.  I'm not saying property is evil. I'm just saying it's an imperfect solution to a problem.  The problem is that we're all stuck here together and have to 1) survive, 2) get along, and 3) hopefully prosper.  Making claims on the world around us is pretty much a necessity for that, but it's messy.  It involves force.  It involves enriching ourselves at the expense of others, and how we go about those claims is clearly debatable, and to pretend it's not is almost embarassing to try to debate.  Hell, libertarians can't even agree with each other with exactly how we are linked to the world around us.

i agree it can be messy, but it still has the advantage of being able to separate defensive force from aggressive, and while it may never achieve some "absolute perfect distribution of resources" the market manages (when not messed up by government force) to put things where they need to be over time.  i think it does a fine job for those of us who are here together and have to 1) survive, 2) get along, and 3) hopefully prosper.  if you have a better system or some composite system i am all ears, but i have yet to hear one that doesn't involve contradictions about force in the name of some guys idea of fair or large government dictatorships....

Simon,

The thing is, we ARE a composite system, and always have been.  There is a mix between private and public activity.

I hope it doesn't appear that I'm arguing for a pure commie N Korea dictatorship.

I think a mixed economy is the way to go.  Recognize and defend property rights to a degree... but realize that this only solves so many problems, and is sometimes inherantly very unfair to those who haven't been blessed with lots of free wealth.

Then again, pretty much any economy is mixed, so that's an easy thing to say.  But our system is a composite, and I can't think of any societies that aren't that give us an example of success of a pure free society.

a pure free society is a end goal that should inform our choices,
saying one shouldn't or cant exist would be like somebody in a pre Greek empire society, arguing that the american system of government cant work, because there is no example of one in existence now and obviously that means there is no demand for one...

[Kshartle]

Libertarian666 even pointed out that "wide acceptence" of a use of force was what separated a gang from a government, but STILL claimed government was illegitimate.

Well he's right on both counts then.

If rape had wide acceptence would that make it legitimate?

Apparenly so if 99% thought it was.

(Facepalm)

Wait this is a joke right? At this point I have to ask.......

[moda0306]

Well he's right on both counts then.

If rape had wide acceptence would that make it legitimate?

Wait this is a joke right? At this point I have to ask.......

Apparenly so if 99% thought it was.

(Facepalm)

Yes, it's a joke, though according to your logical framework, if 99% of people adopt a deductively unprovable line of thought, it's automatically morally valid and I'm an absolute ass for even questioning it.

[moda0306]

Simon,

The thing is, we ARE a composite system, and always have been.  There is a mix between private and public activity.

I hope it doesn't appear that I'm arguing for a pure commie N Korea dictatorship.

I think a mixed economy is the way to go.  Recognize and defend property rights to a degree... but realize that this only solves so many problems, and is sometimes inherantly very unfair to those who haven't been blessed with lots of free wealth.

exactly... and i and many libertarianish thinkers would say the areas we are the most messed up are the ones where government force is being used (and perpetually expanded) to impose "fair"  or to interfere with the markets ability to meet needs...
i would also question how inherently unfair it is, or would be with less "imposing fair" i suspect things would be better for more people not less, regardless of where they start out from.....

I tend to think there are plenty of other areas involving government involvement that are no more/less messy than people granting themselves ownership of natural resources.  Quite often, messy solutions to even messier problems.

when was the last time that took place? as far as i know land grabs and homesteading are nonexistent to miniscule and resources are grabbed by governments (and given to their corrupt cronies) nowadays...

[Kshartle]

Wait this is a joke right? At this point I have to ask.......

Apparenly so if 99% thought it was.

(Facepalm)

Yes, it's a joke, though according to your logical framework, if 99% of people adopt a deductively unprovable line of thought, it's automatically morally valid and I'm an absolute ass for even questioning it.

This is known as projection.

You've consistently put forward that since violence and governments are accepted or practiced all over the world that it's obvious people want them so arguing they are wrong or immoral is invalid.

You've consistently put forward that the laws and violence emanating from a government in a democracy is the will of the people or whatever so it's now morally valid or some such nonsense.

I've argued that behavior is not morally valid just because someone, or anyone, or everyone thinks it is. You've taken the opposite position...again consistently.

I stated that practically everyone everywhere knows that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, threatening people is wrong....etc. This is a fact, but it is not an argument for why such behavior is wrong or immoral. I've made that case many other ways for other reasons. I'd never resort to such a weak argument that something is moral just because they or others think it is. I'll leave that losing argument to anyone else.

The correct answer to the question, "If rape had wide acceptance would that make it legitimate?" is no.

I can only assume you didn't say no because that answer brings up another troubling question:

Why is it wrong?

This is a very easy question to answer though.

Anyone want to take a stab?

[Rien]

Should everybody at all times adhere to the same moral standards?

If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that the moral standard should allow everybody to behave morally correct at all times. Then it becomes possible to logically derive a set of consistent moral guidelines.

If however the answer is no, then we are up in sh*t creek as everybody should be allowed to do as he pleases.

[Mountaineer]

The correct answer to the question, "If rape had wide acceptance would that make it legitimate?" is no.

I can only assume you didn't say no because that answer brings up another troubling question:

Why is it wrong?

This is a very easy question to answer though.

Anyone want to take a stab?

In my humble opinion, this whole discussion hinges around the larger question:  "Who is going to be God?"

If the answer is the Trinitarian God, then the moral questions and much more are settled; God defines all we need in his Word.  God gives us the Law which has three uses - a curb to keep sinful man in check, a mirror so that sinful man can see how his behavior falls short of God's desire, and a guide to show how God intends man to live.  Unfortunately, sinful man fights God kicking and screaming at every turn and often rejecting God's Word.  Thus, God gave us the Gospel.  Unfortunately, the kicking and screaming continues for many and there will be an eternal life of unbelievably awful damnation.  For many others, there will be a wonderful eternal life with God after this brief period of constant struggle where we try to live as God intends as a thankful response to God's gifts.

If the answer is man, then we end up in endless polite debates like in this thread (or much worse, often culminating in war to defend and/or project our greed and ideology), and dare I say verifying we are incapable on our own of living as God intended.  After this life, a future as described above awaits.

[Rien]

If the answer is the Trinitarian God, then the moral questions and much more are settled;

At least it would if god would speak to all of us.
Unfortunately he/she/it does not.
So we are back to square one where somebody provides us with his own moral views.

[doodle]

You know, I think the analogy of the condo is a pretty good one for the way the world works...except the world is like a condo where you are forced to live. Because as much as libertarians desire freedom, the earth is really more like a jail cell. 

In a condo you have a group of people living in close quarters. There is privacy, but one is also impacted by and must get along with their neighbors. I have stated before that I think it would be impossible to run a condo without a government or board of directors.

Now unit owners in a condo have the ability to make a lot of private independent decisions such as the color of their walls, or how they want to decorate things. But there are a lot of decisions that happen within their unit that affect their neighbors where they do not have total freedom. For example, the type of flooring that they put down, or the amount of noise that they make after a certain hour. For this reason there exist rules that everyone must follow. When someone wants to change their floor they have to submit a proposal to the board and they must show proof that the correct sound abatement material was put down. In one particular unit the owner failed to do this and he was forced to rip up his entire floor because the neighbor downstairs complained of the noise. Also, there are incidents where people don't follow  rules and have parties all night disturbing their neighbors peace. In one particular case our board had to move to forcibly evict these people in order to fix the problem.

In addition to rules enforcement the board also votes on things that relate to the common areas whether that be the type of mulch we put down, who the cleaning and landscaping company is going to be, what type of plants we have, what color to paint the exterior walls, when to tent the building for termites etc.

Now the world is infinitely more complicated and dangerous than our condominium. If our condo was not able to rely on external resources like the police, we would have had to create our own internal police force. In the case of the unit owner who had to be evicted we would have had to have our resident police forcefully remove another resident by order of the board. Because unlike in Kshartles fantasy world, sometimes people consume a lot of drugs and alcohol and don't act in reasonable ways. They get into fights with other residents in the hallway at 2 am and try to kick their door down.

Comments?

[Rien]

Comments?

I think there are some mixed issues being debated as if its all the same.
They interrelate and that makes it difficult to clearly separate issues.

The question of government is imo slightly different that simply yes/no. It is a given that in a society there will be rules, and these rules will sometimes have to be enforced. I do not really think anybody has an issue with this.

The problem with government is imo a different one: a government claims the sole right to initiate violence in a given geographical area. And if they get big enough, worldwide.

I have nothing against a government that would not claim this right, that would allow competing governments on their own turf.

Cannot be done? well, we won't know until we try.

[moda0306]

Yes, it's a joke, though according to your logical framework, if 99% of people adopt a deductively unprovable line of thought, it's automatically morally valid and I'm an absolute ass for even questioning it.

This is known as projection.

You've consistently put forward that since violence and governments are accepted or practiced all over the world that it's obvious people want them so arguing they are wrong or immoral is invalid.

You've consistently put forward that the laws and violence emanating from a government in a democracy is the will of the people or whatever so it's now morally valid or some such nonsense.

I've argued that behavior is not morally valid just because someone, or anyone, or everyone thinks it is. You've taken the opposite position...again consistently.

I stated that practically everyone everywhere knows that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, threatening people is wrong....etc. This is a fact, but it is not an argument for why such behavior is wrong or immoral. I've made that case many other ways for other reasons. I'd never resort to such a weak argument that something is moral just because they or others think it is. I'll leave that losing argument to anyone else.

The correct answer to the question, "If rape had wide acceptance would that make it legitimate?" is no.

I can only assume you didn't say no because that answer brings up another troubling question:

Why is it wrong?

This is a very easy question to answer though.

Anyone want to take a stab?

Ummm... It was you that evidenced the existence of property rights with the fact that 99% of people believe in property rights. Even though tons of people disagree with each other as to the nature and extent of those rights.  This same 99% that mostly believes government is morally valid is then dismissed by you as irrelevant.

Rape is wrong IMO. I've said so.

I think it's wrong because human beings have individual sovereignty, and rape is a horrible invasion of that sovereignty.

Though I don't claim it to be logically provable or even 100% self evident.

PS even said, these things are all but impossible to prove.

[Mountaineer]

If the answer is the Trinitarian God, then the moral questions and much more are settled;

At least it would if god would speak to all of us.
Unfortunately he/she/it does not.
So we are back to square one where somebody provides us with his own moral views.

My perspective:  God does speak to all of us through his Word.  However, many do not hear.  Re. square one, I agree.  That is why I made the statement about many men kicking and screaming and basically defying the Triune God; i.e. their god is something else, often theirself.

I believe my comments are trying to address the "why" questions that have been raised.  Many of the other contributors are addressing the "who, what, when, where, and how" aspects. 

[doodle]

Comments?

I think there are some mixed issues being debated as if its all the same.
They interrelate and that makes it difficult to clearly separate issues.

The question of government is imo slightly different that simply yes/no. It is a given that in a society there will be rules, and these rules will sometimes have to be enforced. I do not really think anybody has an issue with this.

The problem with government is imo a different one: a government claims the sole right to initiate violence in a given geographical area. And if they get big enough, worldwide.

I have nothing against a government that would not claim this right, that would allow competing governments on their own turf.

Cannot be done? well, we won't know until we try.

So in my condo example, we should have multiple boards of directors? What happens if the unit owners that are violating the rules happen to be on a different board of directors than the unit owner who is next to them that is being woken up at all hours of the night? How do the board of directors decide what to do? What happens if one board of directors wants to plant oak trees in front of the building and the other board wants palm trees?

I suppose at some point in time, we would just divide up the building into sections and have different boards take control and make decisions for their particular wing of the building (kind of like little kingdoms or countries). As for the common area decisions...I suppose that we would have to divide those up as well unless we could create some  group like the UN of condo boards that would then work together to make decisions.

The problem with government is imo a different one: a government claims the sole right to initiate violence in a given geographical area. And if they get big enough, worldwide.

Well, the flipside to this is anarchy. Competing governments within the same territory is the definition of anarchy. Who is to decide anything then? At this point we go back to the law of the jungle.