Switzerland referendum on citizens dividend

[Kshartle]

Well since property hasn't been defined or established yet, apparently, should we stick to "individual sovereignty?"
The way I think of it is this.  We have two competing premises:

1) Ideally, we're sovereign individuals that should be able to do what we want.

2) We're all stuck on this rock together, and need to consume its resources to survive, but have no fundamental connection to any single resource.

Though we have been given the ability to mold the world around us, there is no evidence, to me, that we have the "right" to based on individual sovereignty.

I find it odd that Kshartle establishes "rights" only for those with what HE deems to be a moral compass.  That is certainly convenient, as he's one of those people.

Am I missing something here?  How is this logic consistent, moral, or deductive?

the reason you cant define property is you are trapped in a definition of property where it cant exist without it having first been stolen from somebody else,  so no matter how you argue it, you end up with confusion. or overlords of fairness imposing the nebulous definition of fair on everybody else through force...  if you can see your way out of that box, the use of force to defend property and liberty as being moral, and the use of force against property and liberty being immoral becomes clear... and it is not kshartles choice of who is or isn't moral, its a, understanding of how and to what ends force is being used that define it

I'm not saying I have a BETTER method, yet... I'm just saying that the premise of pure liberty is fallacious.  There is going to be a balance between force and freedom, and our job must be to optimize it, not rid ourselves of it, because the latter is impossible anyway, and as doodle and I have explained, is very convenient for some, but inconvenient for others.

the balance between force and freedom can't be imposed with force, it has to come from a long slow evolution in our understanding until all force is the "in defense of liberty" type, and no we don't want to push a button and try to jump there in one step, and no it hasn't existed in perfect form (and doesn't need to have or even need to be completely possible to be worth working toward),  some areas we have improved and others lost ground but over all bit by bit we get improvement and it has a proven track record for enriching mankind, 

trying to impose your notions of fair or convenient by force is like Orwellian double think or double speak "the department of slavery makes you free"

It is rare when I read a post that I can't find a point of disagreement.

[Kshartle]

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity

  you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended.. 

So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?

Should a father be able to hand down property to his son? I can think of philosophical arguments for or against this. Which one is right? Well, I'll guess the powerful will decide and force the others who disagree to go along.

The killing comment speaks for itself. Does every disagreement have to end with someone killing someone? How many times have you ever been unable to come to an agreement with someone? Did you kill all of them?

You can't think of a philosophical argument for why a father should be able to hand his property down to his son? Ummm.......can you think of a philosophical argument for why you can give your property to anyone?

Ponder this......if humans were not allowed to leave instructions for their property (I know I know, the things they stole from everyone else) after their death.......how do you think this would affect the creation of wealth/business and the consumption of wealth? - This is an argument from effect which I am not a fan of but it seems to be one of the most successful types of arguments that can be made here. It's only a slightly worse argument than pasting a chart. 

[Kshartle]

If the U.S. government wanted to right the wrong it was responsible for committing, it should give over its own vast landholdings in the American west to the surviving Native Americans.

I think when Browne ran for president in 2002 he advocated the feds selling all that land as well as other stuff and buying annuities for all the social security recipients. That would right the theft that was committed against all of them and not require anymore theft from the young and the working class.

It might be too late for this with the unfunded liabilities so huge now but I've suggested as much for a way for the government to keep up it's debt service in the coming years.

[moda0306]

  you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended.. 

So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?

Should a father be able to hand down property to his son? I can think of philosophical arguments for or against this. Which one is right? Well, I'll guess the powerful will decide and force the others who disagree to go along.

The killing comment speaks for itself. Does every disagreement have to end with someone killing someone? How many times have you ever been unable to come to an agreement with someone? Did you kill all of them?

The killing is implied by your (supposed) "right" to "defend your property."

[moda0306]

Well since property hasn't been defined or established yet, apparently, should we stick to "individual sovereignty?"
The way I think of it is this.  We have two competing premises:

1) Ideally, we're sovereign individuals that should be able to do what we want.

2) We're all stuck on this rock together, and need to consume its resources to survive, but have no fundamental connection to any single resource.

Though we have been given the ability to mold the world around us, there is no evidence, to me, that we have the "right" to based on individual sovereignty.

I find it odd that Kshartle establishes "rights" only for those with what HE deems to be a moral compass.  That is certainly convenient, as he's one of those people.

Am I missing something here?  How is this logic consistent, moral, or deductive?

the reason you cant define property is you are trapped in a definition of property where it cant exist without it having first been stolen from somebody else,  so no matter how you argue it, you end up with confusion. or overlords of fairness imposing the nebulous definition of fair on everybody else through force...  if you can see your way out of that box, the use of force to defend property and liberty as being moral, and the use of force against property and liberty being immoral becomes clear... and it is not kshartles choice of who is or isn't moral, its a, understanding of how and to what ends force is being used that define it

I'm not saying I have a BETTER method, yet... I'm just saying that the premise of pure liberty is fallacious.  There is going to be a balance between force and freedom, and our job must be to optimize it, not rid ourselves of it, because the latter is impossible anyway, and as doodle and I have explained, is very convenient for some, but inconvenient for others.

the balance between force and freedom can't be imposed with force, it has to come from a long slow evolution in our understanding until all force is the "in defense of liberty" type, and no we don't want to push a button and try to jump there in one step, and no it hasn't existed in perfect form (and doesn't need to have or even need to be completely possible to be worth working toward),  some areas we have improved and others lost ground but over all bit by bit we get improvement and it has a proven track record for enriching mankind, 

trying to impose your notions of fair or convenient by force is like Orwellian double think or double speak "the department of slavery makes you free"

I'm not "trapped" in any definition of anything.  I still haven't figured out what has to happen before I "own a piece of property" in Kshartle (or anyone's) eyes.  I'm not saying that "the overlords" have a right to property either, just that the conservative/libertarian premise of "THEFT!" is flawed.

In fact, I've tried many times to discuss property from the standpoint of the "deserted island" example so we can rid ourselves of pesky real-world complications of the fact that we plowed an entire race around the country to take the land by FORCE.  This is met with most convoluted logic, and that it's ridiculous because "we're not a desert island... we already 'own' property!"

Well that's all our earth is... one big island where people make claims on things, some within the ecological framework they exist, and some well-beyond that.

And force "in the defense of liberty" is fine... but force "in the defense of property" is where things get sloppy, yet you won't acknowledge the slop, other than saying "it's better than having government define it."  That may be... but it's still arbitrary and forceful to claim natural resources as your own, and if you think your government of one is better than my federal government, fine, but they're both forms of force so let's quit with the moralizing.

i understand your argument, you cant believe property is moral, because the people who believe in it cant solve the "chicken or the egg" which came first the property or the theft problem.. (as illustrated by desert island and bear cave arguments) but you have admitted you don't have a better solution. we aren't trying to solve the obscure philosophical question of original theft.. the fact that me respecting your property and you respecting mine adds value for both of us.. and any idea based on confusion about the existence of property decreases the value for both of us, since it opens up legitimizing theft, not only of property but of liberty and the products of ones labor. Getting the added value from recognizing defense of property does entail accepting "we already own property" i wish there was a good shut it down for once and for all argument for the notion that property is theft, but i don't have one, the best i can do is say that "property works" it has benefited mankind, and the ideas that result from "no property", or "sometimes property sometimes no property", result in confusion, endless contradiction and violence...

[Pointedstick]

Moda, what you really seem to have problems with is the act of claiming more so than the act of mixing previously unclaimed natural resources with labor, which is basically what we focus on.

If someone finds a mountain, says "this mountain is mine!", plants a sign, and then leaves, I would view that as a very, very different situation from if that dude found the mountain, realized there was a bunch of limestone in it, realized that nobody else was really interested in it, and then set up a mining operation to extract the mineral and generate lime and portland cement to sell to others for the purpose of enriching himself and enabling his customers to build sturdier dwellings. Would you agree that this person had demonstrated an example of mixing natural resources with labor to produce a much, much more defensible and morally appropriate claim to the mountain?

Anybody can claim anything. I can claim all of Mars if I really want to. That's not really the point. You have to actually use the natural resources you've claimed in a productive way if you're going to remove them from a state of nature and declare them owned property such that other people will accept it. In the end, it's not really about being able to defend your property. It's about convincing the vast majority of others that your claim is legitimate. Without that, you could have all the guns in the world and it wouldn't make a difference. In order to convince people, you have to (as usual) appeal to what they believe is right, not what you believe. The vast, overwhelming majority of people will accept your claim that a piece of land is yours if you plant on it, till it, put a fence around it, and build your house around it.

So the short answer is that your property is what you can convince others belongs to you. This requires an understanding of other people's culture and beliefs, but we're a social species so most people don't have much trouble with the concept.

It's all about cultural memes. This is why our society can have ownership of abstract things like LLCs and stock options but a tribal society wouldn't recognize them. Culture determines property.

[Pointedstick]

It's also worth mentioning that if the culture changed to not accept property ownership as much, then people would not accept others' claims to their own property and it would be logical to expect people would own fewer things.

Since I believe we're all in agreement that--stepping outside of morality and philosophy--property ownership has the utilitarian effect of enriching society, such a situation would undoubtedly result in society's impoverishment.

So while it's fun to have these kind of academic debates about the origin and morality of property, the only people who should really be making arguments for lesser degrees of legal and/or cultural recognition of property are those who actually want society to be impoverished, such as doodle, I believe. I would accept this argument coming from him, but not from Moda, since I know that Moda does not want society impoverished, and therefore, diminishing the cultural acceptance of property ownership would harm one of his other goals.

[Kshartle]

those who actually want society to be impoverished, such as doodle, I believe.

Is that really the case?

[Pointedstick]

those who actually want society to be impoverished, such as doodle, I believe.

Is that really the case?

I'll let him speak for himself, but that's my distinct impression based on pretty much everything he's ever said about human society's relationship with nature.

[Xan]

In defense of doodle, I'm not sure that it's fair to equate "enjoying living more simply, and being prepared for the model of eternal growth to level off" with "wanting people to be impoverished".

[moda0306]

Moda, what you really seem to have problems with is the act of claiming more so than the act of mixing previously unclaimed natural resources with labor, which is basically what we focus on.

If someone finds a mountain, says "this mountain is mine!", plants a sign, and then leaves, I would view that as a very, very different situation from if that dude found the mountain, realized there was a bunch of limestone in it, realized that nobody else was really interested in it, and then set up a mining operation to extract the mineral and generate lime and portland cement to sell to others for the purpose of enriching himself and enabling his customers to build sturdier dwellings. Would you agree that this person had demonstrated an example of mixing natural resources with labor to produce a much, much more defensible and morally appropriate claim to the mountain?

Anybody can claim anything. I can claim all of Mars if I really want to. That's not really the point. You have to actually use the natural resources you've claimed in a productive way if you're going to remove them from a state of nature and declare them owned property such that other people will accept it. In the end, it's not really about being able to defend your property. It's about convincing the vast majority of others that your claim is legitimate. Without that, you could have all the guns in the world and it wouldn't make a difference. In order to convince people, you have to (as usual) appeal to what they believe is right, not what you believe. The vast, overwhelming majority of people will accept your claim that a piece of land is yours if you plant on it, till it, put a fence around it, and build your house around it.

So the short answer is that your property is what you can convince others belongs to you. This requires an understanding of other people's culture and beliefs, but we're a social species so most people don't have much trouble with the concept.

It's all about cultural memes. This is why our society can have ownership of abstract things like LLCs and stock options but a tribal society wouldn't recognize them. Culture determines property.

Then if our culture is comfortable with government, government is just as legitimate as property?

Culture may determine legal property, but not moral.  Otherwise slaves were morally valid property of slave-owners.

You seem to have trouble splitting up moral assertions vs functional assertions.

If morality is truly determined by the people around me, then democracy is a phenomenal and moral governmental layout.

[Pointedstick]

Then if our culture is comfortable with government, government is just as legitimate as property?

Yeah, pretty much. It's always been about culture. If the American government disappeared tomorrow, people would just remake it. Government will only weaken or disappear when the people are ready for it. That's one of the major reasons why increasing the prosperity of the private sector and its capacity for controlled, defensive violence are so important to me: a more productive and defensible people have less need for government to provide them with wealth and protection. I view the battle against government as a slow cultural evolution, not something that will just happen one day when the Tea Party gets enough votes.

Culture may determine legal property, but not moral.  Otherwise slaves were morally valid property of slave-owners.

You seem to have trouble splitting up moral assertions vs functional assertions.

The reason why I try not to discuss things in moral terms is because very smart people like everyone here tend to have very well-developed and detailed senses of personal morality, so there is far less commonality when people start talking about things that are moral and immoral. Sure, today we all believe that the brutal southern slavery was immoral, and to your average Joe, that's as far as it needs to go. But around here, we can go into more detail. Is it immoral from our modern perspective because humans are un-ownable? Or because slaves were owned involuntarily (i.e. because they did not sell themselves into slavery)? Is it because the status of slave was for life and hereditarily-passed on? Or maybe because slaves has no option to buy their own freedom? Or even just the sheer brutality, as contrasted with Greek or Roman slavery which was far more humane? This just gets us down a rabbit hole whose only answer is "because that's what I believe!" and then it's kind of hard to continue. Who am I to say your beliefs are wrong?

If morality is truly determined by the people around me, then democracy is a phenomenal and moral governmental layout.

I certainly believe that's why democracy is so popular. It meshes extremely well with the idea that our culture is determined collectively.

But that doesn't mean culture is determined by a bare majority. A culture's collective moral compass isn't determined when 50.1% of people believe that babies are precious and 49.9% believes they're delicious; it has to be more like 90% who all agree on the same thing for the culture as a whole to accept it without too much strife. Where democracy goes astray IMHO is when it gets closer to bare majority rule. The more evenly the population is divided on something, the more the result has historically been a schism, or a division into separate new societies, or a civil war or something. I actually think democracy would be a really pretty good political system if the threshold for political decision-making was like 80% or so. The only things that would get turned into ironclad laws backed by the full force of the government's armed men would be the things that weren't very controversial in society.

[Xan]

That's one of the major reasons why increasing the prosperity of the private sector and its capacity for controlled, defensive violence are so important to me: a more productive and defensible people have less need for government to provide them with wealth and protection.

Fantastic point.  I wonder whether it's a coincidence that the government is always trying to (at best) route all productivity through itself, and also to take away our defenses.

But that doesn't mean culture is determined by a bare majority. A culture's collective moral compass isn't determined when 50.1% of people believe that babies are precious and 49.9% believes they're delicious; it has to be more like 90% who all agree on the same thing. Where democracy goes astray IMHO is when it gets closer to bare majority rule. The more evenly the population is divided on something, the more the result has historically been historically been a schism, or a division into separate new societies, or a civil war or something. I actually think democracy would be a really pretty good political system if the threshold for political decision-making was like 80% or so.

This is a great argument for smaller self-governing political units, each relatively homogenous in culture, interacting with other units via free trade, etc.  Whether this would be best at the state level, or some kind of city/state setup like used to be popular, I'm not sure.

[Kshartle]

I wonder whether it's a coincidence that the government is always trying to (at best) route all productivity through itself, and also to take away our defenses.

Government is like an LLC or C-corp or dragon.....it doesn't actually exist. It's just a group of individuals.

So your asertion is very astute.

I think if you re-phrase it to "I wonder whether it's a coincidence that certain individuals are always trying to (at best) route all productivity through themselves, and also to take away our defenses.......you can easily do away with notion of coincidence.

[Pointedstick]

That's one of the major reasons why increasing the prosperity of the private sector and its capacity for controlled, defensive violence are so important to me: a more productive and defensible people have less need for government to provide them with wealth and protection.

Fantastic point.  I wonder whether it's a coincidence that the government is always trying to (at best) route all productivity through itself, and also to take away our defenses.

Thanks! I don't believe it's at all a coincidence. A more prosperous people better able to defend themselves introduces strain to the meme that we need government to facilitate productivity or protect us from our enemies or threats lurking among us. Government will only disappear as a social institution when the meme dies.

This is a great argument for smaller self-governing political units, each relatively homogenous in culture, interacting with other units via free trade, etc.  Whether this would be best at the state level, or some kind of city/state setup like used to be popular, I'm not sure.

Historically this worked very well to dispel cultural tensions, but the major downside was that smaller political units could not defend themselves militarily against larger ones, and were gobbled up during the age of nation-states.

This is, again why I favor the development and widespread distribution of advanced weaponry. The more advanced a weapon is without requiring a complicated support infrastructure (like a navy or nuclear arsenal), the more power it grants the weak against the strong, and this is as true for governments as it is for people. Machine guns, explosives, cell phones, computers, motor vehicles, things like that. Ever wonder why the government always wants greater and greater ability to monitor and control these things? It's because they empower the individual to challenge an oppressive collective if he or she sees fit.

I think global trade also plays a role. Even if you're small, you're less vulnerable if you supply vital resources to your enemies. For example: Venezuela and most of the Middle East. Our domestic natural gas boom should be making them quake with fear.

[moda0306]

That's one of the major reasons why increasing the prosperity of the private sector and its capacity for controlled, defensive violence are so important to me: a more productive and defensible people have less need for government to provide them with wealth and protection.

Fantastic point.  I wonder whether it's a coincidence that the government is always trying to (at best) route all productivity through itself, and also to take away our defenses.

Thanks! I don't believe it's at all a coincidence. A more prosperous people better able to defend themselves introduces strain to the meme that we need government to facilitate productivity or protect us from our enemies or threats lurking among us. Government will only disappear as a social institution when the meme dies.

This is a great argument for smaller self-governing political units, each relatively homogenous in culture, interacting with other units via free trade, etc.  Whether this would be best at the state level, or some kind of city/state setup like used to be popular, I'm not sure.

Historically this worked very well to dispel cultural tensions, but the major downside was that smaller political units could not defend themselves militarily against larger ones, and were gobbled up during the age of nation-states.

This is, again why I favor the development and widespread distribution of advanced weaponry. The more advanced a weapon is without requiring a complicated support infrastructure (like a navy or nuclear arsenal), the more power it grants the weak against the strong, and this is as true for governments as it is for people. Machine guns, explosives, cell phones, computers, motor vehicles, things like that. Ever wonder why the government always wants greater and greater ability to monitor and control these things? It's because they empower the individual to challenge an oppressive collective if he or she sees fit.

I think global trade also plays a role. Even if you're small, you're less vulnerable if you supply vital resources to your enemies. For example: Venezuela and most of the Middle East. Our domestic natural gas boom should be making them quake with fear.

This also puts a lot of power in the hands of the crazed-motivated, which then again leaves a society looking to a political entity for protection.

It's one thing for a crazy person to have access to a handgun.  Yet another to have access to something that could level a whole city.

[Pointedstick]

This also puts a lot of power in the hands of the crazed-motivated, which then again leaves a society looking to a political entity for protection.

It's one thing for a crazy person to have access to a handgun.  Yet another to have access to something that could level a whole city.

I agree, Barack Obama definitely shouldn't have the ability to launch nuclear weapons. It's just too dangerous. Somebody should protect us from him!

[moda0306]

This also puts a lot of power in the hands of the crazed-motivated, which then again leaves a society looking to a political entity for protection.

It's one thing for a crazy person to have access to a handgun.  Yet another to have access to something that could level a whole city.

I agree, Barack Obama definitely shouldn't have the ability to launch nuclear weapons. It's just too dangerous. Somebody should protect us from him!

Well if he started an initiative to destroy all those nukes, let's see just how libertarian and scared of "government coming for us" the tea party wing really is .

But really, you think universal access to weapons that can level a city isn't a fragile situation that either 1) should be managed by government, or 2) that the vast majority of society would WANT the government to manage?

[Pointedstick]

In all seriousness, the point is that you can't really get free of the fear of some foreign madman blowing you up by giving up your own power to a domestic violence-production institution that might at any time be ruled by a domestic madman willing to turn the power against YOU.

In addition, foreign madmen often turn out to be far more rational than we imagine. North Korea has possessed nuclear weapons for years now, yet they haven't used them because even the stunted man-children ruling the country understand that they would be obliterated in the retaliatory strikes. Stalin was also pretty rational in terms of foreign policy. He knew he couldn't push things too far internationally since there were other actors out there to constrain him; domestically? Forget about it. I think it's safe to say that you would be in more danger as one of his subjects! He could do whatever he wanted to his own people because they had no real power to resist him, so he did. So did Mao.

These people were ruthless monsters, for sure, but they understood the limits of their power and did not foolishly exceed it the way a true madman like Hitler did. And notice how he was ultimately less successful than them as his madness progressively undermined more and more of his own power.

[Pointedstick]

Well if he started an initiative to destroy all those nukes, let's see just how libertarian and scared of "government coming for us" the tea party wing really is .

But really, you think universal access to weapons that can level a city isn't a fragile situation that either 1) should be managed by government, or 2) that the vast majority of society would WANT the government to manage?

Actually, within the scope of American history, cannons, mortars, and warships were all privately-owned weapons of war that were quite capable of leveling an entire city. The culture back then accepted it. I believe it could easily again.

But I also don't believe that a Private Society would even have nukes for a variety of reasons. Man, I need to finish the first draft of the book!

[moda0306]

Well if he started an initiative to destroy all those nukes, let's see just how libertarian and scared of "government coming for us" the tea party wing really is .

But really, you think universal access to weapons that can level a city isn't a fragile situation that either 1) should be managed by government, or 2) that the vast majority of society would WANT the government to manage?

Actually, within the scope of American history, cannons, mortars, and warships were all privately-owned weapons of war that were quite capable of leveling an entire city. The culture back then accepted it. I believe it could easily again.

But I also don't believe that a Private Society would even have nukes for a variety of reasons. Man, I need to finish the first draft of the book!

Really?  A cannon?  Mortar?  These could only level a city if someone could get tons of shots off, and then you'd need a truck full of rounds.

And a ship?  Only if you had a massive ship with tons of cannons manned by equally fanatical/motivated men.

I'm surprised you don't realize how much remarkably easier it is to destroy when technology helps you?  If the nuke was/is so irrelevant, why was there a race to get it, and why is Iran going through economic hell to keep their right to make one?

The way I see it, the existence of more advanced weaponry doesn't in any way eliminate the value of a strong, stable government... it simply means that it's not going to be one large standing army against another... and more of what we have today... a lot of covert operations and economic sanctions to limit the number of crazies and/or their ability to get the most destructive weapons.  The increased destructive potential doesn't eliminate the need for government... but the nature of our defense.

[Pointedstick]

Really?  A cannon?  Mortar?  These could only level a city if someone could get tons of shots off, and then you'd need a truck full of rounds.

And a ship?  Only if you had a massive ship with tons of cannons manned by equally fanatical/motivated men.

Back in the age of sail, such warships were practically terror weapons. They might not look like much today, but we're talking about history. Even brief naval bombardments could be devastating.

I'm surprised you don't realize how much remarkably easier it is to destroy when technology helps you?

I absolutely realize that. In fact, it's the whole point. Rather, my bet is that on average, today most people can be trusted with such capabilities, as opposed to only being safe from each other and themselves when their destructive capabilities are largely taken from them and monopolized by a central organization of violence-production. And again, this is today, not 2,000 years ago.

If the nuke was/is so irrelevant, why was there a race to get it, and why is Iran going through economic hell to keep their right to make one?

It's not irrelevant; that's not what I said. Personally, I believe that the desire for nuclear weapons is something we create ourselves by aggressively interfering in other countries affairs with conventional military force… unless they have nukes. It's a way one government can protect itself from another, but paradoxically, it invites the very type of hostile attention they're hoping to deter. I just think that for a hypothetical Private Society, there are more cost-effective and less dangerous to accomplish this goal with conventional weapons and international trade.

The way I see it, the existence of more advanced weaponry doesn't in any way eliminate the value of a strong, stable government... it simply means that it's not going to be one large standing army against another... and more of what we have today... a lot of covert operations and economic sanctions to limit the number of crazies and/or their ability to get the most destructive weapons.  The increased destructive potential doesn't eliminate the need for government... but the nature of our defense.

But it does make governments more vulnerable. As we see today, you don't need a government of your own to engage in covert operations and terrorism. My reading of the history of governments is that governments provoked other societies to develop governments of their own as defensive measures, because at the time, you needed a government to marshal society's resources toward enough of a military to keep you safe from the other governments.

Nowadays, a group of people doesn't need a government of their own to accomplish the same defense, or even offense, in the case of terrorism. Weapons are so powerful that governments are now largely obsolete as defensive tools.

At least, that's how I see it.

[moda0306]

Really?  A cannon?  Mortar?  These could only level a city if someone could get tons of shots off, and then you'd need a truck full of rounds.

And a ship?  Only if you had a massive ship with tons of cannons manned by equally fanatical/motivated men.

Back in the age of sail, such warships were practically terror weapons. They might not look like much today, but we're talking about history. Even brief naval bombardments could be devastating.

I'm surprised you don't realize how much remarkably easier it is to destroy when technology helps you?

I absolutely realize that. In fact, it's the whole point. Rather, my bet is that on average, today most people can be trusted with such capabilities, as opposed to only being safe from each other and themselves when their destructive capabilities are largely taken from them and monopolized by a central organization of violence-production. And again, this is today, not 2,000 years ago.

If the nuke was/is so irrelevant, why was there a race to get it, and why is Iran going through economic hell to keep their right to make one?

It's not irrelevant; that's not what I said. Personally, I believe that the desire for nuclear weapons is something we create ourselves by aggressively interfering in other countries affairs with conventional military force… unless they have nukes. It's a way one government can protect itself from another, but paradoxically, it invites the very type of hostile attention they're hoping to deter. I just think that for a hypothetical Private Society, there are more cost-effective and less dangerous to accomplish this goal with conventional weapons and international trade.

The way I see it, the existence of more advanced weaponry doesn't in any way eliminate the value of a strong, stable government... it simply means that it's not going to be one large standing army against another... and more of what we have today... a lot of covert operations and economic sanctions to limit the number of crazies and/or their ability to get the most destructive weapons.  The increased destructive potential doesn't eliminate the need for government... but the nature of our defense.

But it does make governments more vulnerable. As we see today, you don't need a government of your own to engage in covert operations and terrorism. My reading of the history of governments is that governments provoked other societies to develop governments of their own as defensive measures, because at the time, you needed a government to marshal society's resources toward enough of a military to keep you safe from the other governments.

Nowadays, a group of people doesn't need a government of their own to accomplish the same defense, or even offense, in the case of terrorism. Weapons are so powerful that governments are now largely obsolete as defensive tools.

At least, that's how I see it.

Traditional governments/militaries might be obsolete, but you made my point in one of your posts... "MOST people can be trusted."  MOST.  Not all... and when we're trying to insure against the uninsurable, and using government to do so, what happens 9/10 times isn't of interest... it's that 1/10 or 1/100 that worries us.  When a crazy person can destroy a city, rather than it taking a fleet of ships with cannons and men, it simply means our government has a very DIFFERENT job, not that it' gone away.

[Pointedstick]

Traditional governments/militaries might be obsolete, but you made my point in one of your posts... "MOST people can be trusted."  MOST.  Not all... and when we're trying to insure against the uninsurable, and using government to do so, what happens 9/10 times isn't of interest... it's that 1/10 or 1/100 that worries us.  When a crazy person can destroy a city, rather than it taking a fleet of ships with cannons and men, it simply means our government has a very DIFFERENT job, not that it' gone away.

You're right, we are looking to protect against extremely rare events. And fortunately, a crazy person destroying an entire city is indeed pretty rare; it's only happened twice, in fact. The perpetrator's name was was Harry Truman and his victims were innocent civilians living in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Government isn't just an "anti-violence insurance policy", as much as that actually sounds like a pretty good idea if it could ever exist. Governments may reduce the chance of a private citizen or terrorist madman creating great destruction, but only by creating that very same risk themselves! Instead we have to worry about our own governments confiscating our land, taking all our food, herding us into cattle cars, gassing us, drafting us to fight the people we're supposed to be afraid of, and so on and so forth. Not to mention the risk of foreign governments doing these things to us anyway. The Japanese people who might have thought that their pan-pacific empire represented an anti-violence insurance policy got a rude awakening during World War II.

We Americans have had it pretty good, better than most citizens of most governments ever have, and that can color our perceptions. But it's worth remembering the terrible history of governments who have starved and murdered their own people and engaged in bloody conquests that left huge swathes of their own people dead. Modern, advanced countries like Germany, France, the UK, Australia, and Russia. Some of the victims of these endeavors who thought they had an anti-violence insurance might policy prefer to have taken their chances with terrorism if they could turn back the hands of time from beyond the grave.

Finally, I thought insurance was supposed to provide financial compensation for rare catastrophes, not prevent them from happening in the first place. I don't think the insurance metaphor does a very good job of explaining government.

[doodle]

It's impossible to convince you guys I think, but here is more in depth data from Pinker.

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-his ... nce-pinker

The other method of measuring violence in pre-state societies is ethnographic vital statistics. What is the rate of death by violence in people who have recently lived outside of state control, namely hunter-gatherers, hunter-horticulturalists, and other tribal groups?

There are 27 samples that I know of, where ethnographic demographers that have done the calculation. I've plotted them as war deaths per 100,000 people per year. They go as high as 1500, but the average across these 27 non-state societies is a little bit more than 500. Again, let's stack the deck against modernity by picking some of the most violent modern societies for comparison, such as, for example, Germany in the 20th century, with its two world war: its rate is around 135, compared to 524 for the non-state societies. Russia in the 20th century, with two world wars, a revolution, and a civil war, is about 130. Japan in the 20th century, about 30. United States in the 20th century, with two world wars plus five wars in Asia, is about a pixel.