Just How Stupid Are We?

[Jan Van]

I remember the day my daughter called me up and asked if I'd heard they had captured Osama Bin Laden. I turned on the TV and got the news it was Saddam Hussein. No difference in her mind.

I told her I couldn't vote for McCain because of his cute little tune sung to the tune of the Beach Boy's song Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran". She told me she thought that was neat because we SHOULD bomb Iran. I asked her why, and she said because of 9/11.

If people like her are allowed to vote there is no hope for the Republic.

I hope you realize that you're somewhat to blame on this one.

I'd say, not necessarily. You can't force your kids to think or act a certain way. Indoctrination only goes so far.
Assuming ns2 didn't actually tell her Saddam-did-it :-)

[Kshartle]

Democracy is the most immoral form of government?

Wow.

Says who?  Coercion is coercion... And many people have a lot of fondness and feelings of legitimacy for their dictator governments. At least with a democracy you can be relatively sure that you can vote with your feet and won't be detained without due process or drafted.

I'm not saying democracy is perfect, but at least with tyranny of the majority you have the burden of proving to 51% of the population that what you're doing is a good idea.

It breeds immorality.

You must be joking about the detained comment and drafted.

You do not need to prove anything to 51%....just 51% of voters. Furthermore, since humans tend to believe what they want, the people who get elected are LIARS. The ones who tell the truth lose the election.

Yeah, some people identify with their dictator, sure. It's nothing like the democracy though where you're told "it's the will of the people, social contract blah blah other nonsense".

Democracy is the evolution of human farm management. Let the livestock think they are free and have a say. It's a suggestion box for the slaves and capturing of their minds by letting them participate in the tyranny.

*Edit* - these are subjective opinions guys. I don't have stats to prove that democracy breeds immorality. I do have my observation that when my fellow "citizens" perceive a problem they think we need a law to solve it or a redistribution scheme or another politician. In a dictatorship I think people more correctly realize they need less violence and more freedom to solve the problems.

[moda0306]

Democracy is the most immoral form of government?

Wow.

Says who?  Coercion is coercion... And many people have a lot of fondness and feelings of legitimacy for their dictator governments. At least with a democracy you can be relatively sure that you can vote with your feet and won't be detained without due process or drafted.

I'm not saying democracy is perfect, but at least with tyranny of the majority you have the burden of proving to 51% of the population that what you're doing is a good idea.

It breeds immorality.

You must be joking about the detained comment and drafted.

You do not need to prove anything to 51%....just 51% of voters. Furthermore, since humans tend to believe what they want, the people who get elected are LIARS. The ones who tell the truth lose the election.

Yeah, some people identify with their dictator, sure. It's nothing like the democracy though where you're told "it's the will of the people, social contract blah blah other nonsense".

Democracy is the evolution of human farm management. Let the livestock think they are free and have a say. It's a suggestion box for the slaves and capturing of their minds by letting them participate in the tyranny.

*Edit* - these are subjective opinions guys. I don't have stats to prove that democracy breeds immorality. I do have my observation that when my fellow "citizens" perceive a problem they think we need a law to solve it or a redistribution scheme or another politician. In a dictatorship I think people more correctly realize they need less violence and more freedom to solve the problems.

Not kidding... I feel safer in a democracy from being drafted or put in jail without due process than in a dictatorship.  These are the largest threats to my personal freedom.

Ah yes... 51% of voters... people ages 0-17 not apply I guess.  Sorry for that gross misstatement .

Do you trul think that our most immoral form of governments in history have been democratic?  "Social Contract" language isn't any more ridiculous than "divine right" language.  It may lull people in a bit, but maybe it does so because it is (gasp) a more reasonable form of government than dictatorships.

Further, if you have the right to leave, I see little intrusion.  For the entirety of both of our lives we've lived under the "tyranny" of the United States.  There was never a day when I should have felt that any "property" I acquired in this country wasn't subject to some degree of tax or regulation by the government.  Same for you.  So you know what your options are, yet you choose to stay.  My theory is because 1) the U.S. is a pretty great place to be, and 2) there aren't any thriving "free societies" out there because that system isn't compatible with scarcity and human nature.  But for some reason you've decided to stay here, attempt to acquire property under terms you know will exist (taxes and regulation), and then claim to be stolen from by everyone else when those terms are followed-through on.

Eventually people are going to feel bad for you. Maybe the problem isn't democracy, but your unwillingness to take ownership of your life and remove yourself from a system of government that you don't now nor never have agreed with.    It'd be one thing if the United States had invaded land you thought to be your own and set up a government you didn't agree to, but you were born here, and every contract you've ever entered into, or any piece of "property" you've ever taken ownership of, you knew was going to be subject to reguations or taxes.

I don't mean to make things personal, but eventually we have to establish who is trying to change the game on who.  We have to realize who is not really taking the term "self-ownership" seriously.  The government's rules, regulations, welfare and taxes were here before you as a result of what MOST people viewed as their legitimate role within a region.  If you don't like the rules of that region, you had every opportunity to move, and maybe it's YOU trying to impose YOUR definitions of who should hold power of property on unwilling neighbors rather than just accept the fact that none of us truly "own" what we deem to be our property 100%, and if we think we do, we are the fools, not those that understand the system as it is and engaged others accordingly.

So I almost have to wonder who is "dumber" in our electorate:

1) A relatively clueless guy who views government as probably legitimate, but, more importantly, realizes he can only control himself and strategizes his decisions in life accordingly around current and potential government intrusion.

2) A stalwart defender of individual sovereignty and (their interpretation of) legitimate property rights, who thinks his government is illegitimate, and has been before he was born, but has repeatedly engaged in taxed/regulated transaction after transaction, and has complained the whole time that he has been stolen from.  He has the full right to leave with most, if not all of his net worth in tact, but he doesn't.  He continues to earn X, only to have 30% of X taken from him by government, which he knew he was getting into, and complains that he was stolen from.

The second guy might technically be more correct in his moral position, but is he really more intelligent?

Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me... you know?

[Pointedstick]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

[Libertarian666]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

Our current system allows 1/300,000,000th of the population to do anything "they" want to us, up to and including killing us at whim. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing that from an absolute dictatorship.

[moda0306]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

Our current system allows 1/300,000,000th of the population to do anything "they" want to us, up to and including killing us at whim. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing that from an absolute dictatorship.

No it does not.  There are multitudes of things that the President either can't do at all, or he would be punished if he did (I'm assuming you're talking about him).

In fact, what the President can do without consent or support of other branches is actually quite limited.  Also, he's reelected every 4 years, so whatever he does has to (usually) meet the 51% rule... year 2000 election notwithstanding.

[moda0306]

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

I remember you mentioned this idea in a different thread.  And I know I haven't thought it thourgh, but I like it.  It would be cool to see a town or state try this, though I doubt it would happen in the US.

I also like the idea of a "Repealislature".

Agreed.  I like this idea... in theory. I reserve my "right" to change my mind.

[Kshartle]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

Our current system allows 1/300,000,000th of the population to do anything "they" want to us, up to and including killing us at whim. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing that from an absolute dictatorship.

No it does not.  There are multitudes of things that the President either can't do at all, or he would be punished if he did (I'm assuming you're talking about him).

In fact, what the President can do without consent or support of other branches is actually quite limited.  Also, he's reelected every 4 years, so whatever he does has to (usually) meet the 51% rule... year 2000 election notwithstanding.

1. The love it or leave argument is so silly I feel bad about myself even commenting on it. Your choice is only to move to another pen. Saying things like "if you think it's so bad then why don't you quit your job, pull up your roots and move to a strange land where you don't know anyone, possibly don't speak the language, leave your family and everything normal to you and if you don't you are complicit in your servitude"........this is complete BS man.

Please tell me where to move to escape coercion? The mountains? This is hardly freedom but we've gone over this before and dispelled this falacious argument/apology for government before.

2. When I say the most immoral I am not saying it's the worst from a standard of living point of view. The two are always confused here. It's like when people say welfare is moral because it feeds the poor. That is not morality or a moral code. That is a goal or outcome and the means to acheive it are theft which = immoral.

Democracy perverts the people into accepting the coercion and taking part in it. It's the entitlement and empowerment that the voters feel is their right. They get a vote so they get to vote for theft and murder and imprisonment of others. They think their vote gives them the right to do things by proxy (through the government) that they know they have no right doing personally. That's why it's the most immoral. It outright breeds the behavior in our society like some evil spawn.

People hold Obama or Bush responsible for the theft and the murders they commit. I hold the voters responsible. The blood is on their hands just as much. That's what I'm talking about when I say it's immoral. I don't hold the people in a dictatorship responsible for the government's actions. They have a gun to their heads.

Does that difference make sense?

[Kshartle]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

However, this way of viewing the situation suggests to me that an improvement to democracy would be increasing the threshold for decision-making to a 60 or 80%, essentially requiring a higher threshold for societal consent. This makes sense if we are considering that it is a "public good" that power be used in the manner that benefits people most. Increasing the threshold for the use of power ensures a more harmonious society because the awesome power of the government would only be deployed for issues where there was broad agreement.

I actually think a pure democracy with an acceptance threshold of 80% that added a fourth branch of government whose only power was to repeal laws--with an acceptance threshold of only 65%--would be a massive improvement over any government ever seen.

Our current system allows 1/300,000,000th of the population to do anything "they" want to us, up to and including killing us at whim. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing that from an absolute dictatorship.

No it does not.  There are multitudes of things that the President either can't do at all, or he would be punished if he did (I'm assuming you're talking about him).

In fact, what the President can do without consent or support of other branches is actually quite limited.  Also, he's reelected every 4 years, so whatever he does has to (usually) meet the 51% rule... year 2000 election notwithstanding.

The Tyranny of one or the Tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the majority of voters.......yeah, I'd rather live in one of the latter two for sure.

[Kshartle]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

What part do you disagree with?

I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said Democracy was the most immoral because the population is participating en masse with the delusion that they have the right to murder, steal, and kidnap people through their proxies. This system is a breeding ground for immoral behavior and beliefs.  I didn't say it wasn't generally a much nicer place to live than a dictatorship. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the distinction.

[Gumby]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

What part do you disagree with?

I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said Democracy was the most immoral because the population is participating en masse with the delusion that they have the right to murder, steal, and kidnap people through their proxies. This system is a breeding ground for immoral behavior and beliefs.  I didn't say it wasn't generally a much nicer place to live than a dictatorship. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the distinction.

This is probably a dumb question, but if you don't believe in dictatorships, and you don't believe in democracy, what exactly do you propose as a realistic alternative?

[Kshartle]

I disagree with Kshartle on this. Obviously, we're still talking about systems that determine the threshold for using power to oppress people, since that's what governments are. But within that paradigm, democracy theoretically allows for the power to be used less arbitrarily than dictatorship. A dictatorship, theocracy, or a monarchy, for example, allows 1% of the population with political power to make decisions for an unwilling 99% of the population, while a democracy requires a 51% majority make decisions for the other 49%. In essence, democracy puts a higher burden for popularity on those who would use the power of the state to oppress their enemies (at least in theory, if we were talking about a "pure democracy" where everything were up for a vote).

What part do you disagree with?

I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said Democracy was the most immoral because the population is participating en masse with the delusion that they have the right to murder, steal, and kidnap people through their proxies. This system is a breeding ground for immoral behavior and beliefs.  I didn't say it wasn't generally a much nicer place to live than a dictatorship. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the distinction.

This is probably a dumb question, but if you don't believe in dictatorships, and you don't believe in democracy, what exactly do you propose as a realistic alternative?

What do you mean by don't believe in? I believe in them.

I support the right of the individual to do whatever they want as long as they are peaceful and don't interfere with the rights of others. I believe that whatever exchange of property or value two or more competent parties voluntarily agree to should not be interferred with by others.

I propose that humans should deal with their dissagreements peacefully and with negotiation, even if that means agreeing upon a third party to mediate.

I propose that that humans stop pointing weapons at each other as a means of resolving their problems.

I believe any attempt to use force and theft to resolve problems (even problems of force and theft) only perpetuates them. Therefore I do not wish to "order" society or set up a "standard" or anything else. Choose the path of non-violence (defense notwithstanding), encourage others to adopt it and in particular to adopt it towards the kids.

You cannot "enfore" peacefulness. If it requires force then it's not peaceful. If you rob people to pay for cops to protect them from being robbed you haven't solved the problem of being robbed.

[Benko]

How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

[Kshartle]

1) the U.S. is a pretty great place to be, and 2) there aren't any thriving "free societies" out there because that system isn't compatible with scarcity and human nature.  But for some reason you've decided to stay here, attempt to acquire property under terms you know will exist (taxes and regulation), and then claim to be stolen from by everyone else when those terms are followed-through on.

we have covered this a bunch of times as well, yes its a great place to be, not because it has government theft and coercion but because it has protected property and liberty against those things more than other places. and no your hypothetical perfect free society doesn't exist yet, but given that the most prosperous and desirable places have the most freedom and limit government and the least prosperous and desirable places have the least freedom and the most government (or are anarchist thugocracys) don't you think that might be a damn fine argument for heading toward more freedom and better limitations on government instead of in the other direction?

Human cooperation is the solution to scarcity. We might not be able to create more land by cooperating, but we can make it a lot more useable. There are so many examples.......saying we need government because resources are scarce is like saying we need cancer because we're going to die. Violence creates more scarcity.

Human nature? Is it the nature of a person born in Pakistan to be Muslim? How about in Chile to be Catholic? Is it my nature that I speak English?

We are taught these things by the people around us. Just like they teach us to worship the flag and G. Washington and that welfare helps the poor and that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

The kids can be taught that hitting and stealing is unacceptable. They can learn that it's wrong. The ones that don't can be shunned. Instead we make them police chief, or Commander-in-Chief.

[Kshartle]

How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

[moda0306]

Our current system allows 1/300,000,000th of the population to do anything "they" want to us, up to and including killing us at whim. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing that from an absolute dictatorship.

No it does not.  There are multitudes of things that the President either can't do at all, or he would be punished if he did (I'm assuming you're talking about him).

In fact, what the President can do without consent or support of other branches is actually quite limited.  Also, he's reelected every 4 years, so whatever he does has to (usually) meet the 51% rule... year 2000 election notwithstanding.

1. The love it or leave argument is so silly I feel bad about myself even commenting on it. Your choice is only to move to another pen. Saying things like "if you think it's so bad then why don't you quit your job, pull up your roots and move to a strange land where you don't know anyone, possibly don't speak the language, leave your family and everything normal to you and if you don't you are complicit in your servitude"........this is complete BS man.

Please tell me where to move to escape coercion? The mountains? This is hardly freedom but we've gone over this before and dispelled this falacious argument/apology for government before.

2. When I say the most immoral I am not saying it's the worst from a standard of living point of view. The two are always confused here. It's like when people say welfare is moral because it feeds the poor. That is not morality or a moral code. That is a goal or outcome and the means to acheive it are theft which = immoral.

Democracy perverts the people into accepting the coercion and taking part in it. It's the entitlement and empowerment that the voters feel is their right. They get a vote so they get to vote for theft and murder and imprisonment of others. They think their vote gives them the right to do things by proxy (through the government) that they know they have no right doing personally. That's why it's the most immoral. It outright breeds the behavior in our society like some evil spawn.

People hold Obama or Bush responsible for the theft and the murders they commit. I hold the voters responsible. The blood is on their hands just as much. That's what I'm talking about when I say it's immoral. I don't hold the people in a dictatorship responsible for the government's actions. They have a gun to their heads.

Does that difference make sense?

Regarding 1), you can either have a society and have to put up with government, or you can live free either in the mountains or outside the U.S.  It may not FEEL like freedom to you, but nobody is forcing you to accept the terms of the territory under which you were born.  You can move somewhere else.  Certainly I feel bad for anyone who must relocate, just as I feel bad for someone whose child has died prematurely, but if you can't find a free society anywhere that suits your interests and allows you to have your cake (freedom) and eat it too (see your family, be around others who speak your language, and watch HDTV), maybe that's your problem, and not that of the established territory you've chosen to reside and acquire property within.

I'm not asking you to "love it," or any other aspect of your life, but you had a plethora of decisions to make about where you settled, and you decided that the U.S., for all its problems, seemed to attract everyone in your family, millions of productive people, a lot of fun things you like to do, and lots of people that speak your language, as well as the internet that allows you to complain about all of the negatives.  If you truly are in control of your destiny, you should have realized early on that the agents of the United States, whether implicitly or explicitly "hired" by those around you to enforce norms, was going to be an enemy to that destiny, you could and should have moved.

You're essentially angry that you can't enforce your own interpretation of property onto other people.  You're unwilling to move away from all the fun stuff in the U.S., so you'd rather stay here, claim all the benefits, and then complain about all the "theft" and "force" that you've been subject to.  Sorry man.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If there's not enough people out there who agree with you on how to share our earth with each other, and you're judging everyone else as being morally bankrupt, maybe the problem isn't them, but you.

2) If people truly "own themselves," then democracy can't "pervert them" into anything.  They CHOOSE to will a certain government into existence.  Whether someone "asks them" to participate is putting the cart before the horse.  Democracies developed because people WANTED to participate in government as equals.

What if I think that people are "perverted" into thinking that they can claim land, resources, and earth's animal population into their own benefit in unnatural ways??  Well if you don't agree with me on that, and take your "right" to its logical conclusion, then in your world the cattle-owner can shoot me for trying to "steal" (read: free) his property from their cages.

Maybe we're all a little perverted.  Or we have to be when we're all forced onto this rock together with not enough resources to go around.

[moda0306]

1) the U.S. is a pretty great place to be, and 2) there aren't any thriving "free societies" out there because that system isn't compatible with scarcity and human nature.  But for some reason you've decided to stay here, attempt to acquire property under terms you know will exist (taxes and regulation), and then claim to be stolen from by everyone else when those terms are followed-through on.

we have covered this a bunch of times as well, yes its a great place to be, not because it has government theft and coercion but because it has protected property and liberty against those things more than other places. and no your hypothetical perfect free society doesn't exist yet, but given that the most prosperous and desirable places have the most freedom and limit government and the least prosperous and desirable places have the least freedom and the most government (or are anarchist thugocracys) don't you think that might be a damn fine argument for heading toward more freedom and better limitations on government instead of in the other direction?

Human cooperation is the solution to scarcity. We might not be able to create more land by cooperating, but we can make it a lot more useable. There are so many examples.......saying we need government because resources are scarce is like saying we need cancer because we're going to die. Violence creates more scarcity.

Human nature? Is it the nature of a person born in Pakistan to be Muslim? How about in Chile to be Catholic? Is it my nature that I speak English?

We are taught these things by the people around us. Just like they teach us to worship the flag and G. Washington and that welfare helps the poor and that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

The kids can be taught that hitting and stealing is unacceptable. They can learn that it's wrong. The ones that don't can be shunned. Instead we make them police chief, or Commander-in-Chief.

Arbitrary claims on property are the opposite of cooperation.  It's making a very implicitly violent claim on something I had no hand in making. It means if you come onto "my land," I can shoot you.  Your ability to "cooperate" your way out of that situation lies only in my willingness to see an upside in not shooting you down.




Simon

How great a place would the U.S. be if millions of Indians weren't displaced from what was apparently NOT "their property?"  Great if you like camping.  Not so much if you like the internet.

[moda0306]

How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

How many votes and by whom do I need to shoot someone who won't leave the woods that I've claimed as "my property?"

[Kshartle]

Regarding 1), you can either have a society and have to put up with government, or you can live free either in the mountains or outside the U.S.  It may not FEEL like freedom to you, but nobody is forcing you to accept the terms of the territory under which you were born. 

You're essentially angry that you can't enforce your own interpretation of property onto other people.  You're unwilling to move away from all the fun stuff in the U.S., so you'd rather stay here, claim all the benefits, and then complain about all the "theft" and "force" that you've been subject to.  Sorry man.  You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

2) If people truly "own themselves," then democracy can't "pervert them" into anything.  They CHOOSE to will a certain government into existence.  Whether someone "asks them" to participate is putting the cart before the horse.  Democracies developed because people WANTED to participate in government as equals.

You have a certain knack for completely ignoring the point.

If you "escape" to the mountains....you do not have freedom so this argument that you're free because you can flee to the mountains and give up the benefits of society if you so choose is nonsensical. Others can take up the torch. I won't touch on this argument again.

I'm not angry because I can't "enforce" my beliefs on others. You support force against people...I do not.

People "choose" to will a certain government into existance?? Moda.........please do an experiment tomorrow and "unchoose" the government. Do it as an experiment. You'll find out very quickly you don't have a choice. You are subject to the tyranny of the majority. Saying this is good is the same argument that if two guys and a girl on an island vote whether or not rape is ok....well...she better run for the freedom of the mountains or stick around and "choose" to accept the laws. 

[Kshartle]

How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

How many votes and by whom do I need to shoot someone who won't leave the woods that I've claimed as "my property?"

NM

Good thing we have the government. Othewise moda would be running about the nearest wooded area shooting people. We could turn our backs on violence except we can't solve the riddle of Moda shooting everyone stepping into his woodland lair.

[Xan]

Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

[moda0306]

Regarding 1), you can either have a society and have to put up with government, or you can live free either in the mountains or outside the U.S.  It may not FEEL like freedom to you, but nobody is forcing you to accept the terms of the territory under which you were born. 

You're essentially angry that you can't enforce your own interpretation of property onto other people.  You're unwilling to move away from all the fun stuff in the U.S., so you'd rather stay here, claim all the benefits, and then complain about all the "theft" and "force" that you've been subject to.  Sorry man.  You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

2) If people truly "own themselves," then democracy can't "pervert them" into anything.  They CHOOSE to will a certain government into existence.  Whether someone "asks them" to participate is putting the cart before the horse.  Democracies developed because people WANTED to participate in government as equals.

You have a certain knack for completely ignoring the point.

If you "escape" to the mountains....you do not have freedom so this argument that you're free because you can flee to the mountains and give up the benefits of society if you so choose is nonsensical. Others can take up the torch. I won't touch on this argument again.

I'm not angry because I can't "enforce" my beliefs on others. You support force against people...I do not.

People "choose" to will a certain government into existance?? Moda.........please do an experiment tomorrow and "unchoose" the government. Do it as an experiment. You'll find out very quickly you don't have a choice. You are subject to the tyranny of the majority. Saying this is good is the same argument that if two guys and a girl on an island vote whether or not rape is ok....well...she better run for the freedom of the mountains or stick around and "choose" to accept the laws.

So if there is any corner of the world that is NOT free, I am not free because they MIGHT take up the torch against me? 

I'm not saying where you go will be perfect, but that's not the U.S. government's problem or any U.S. citizen's problem that is happy living here.  They can't control whether some guy in Somalia might try to break into your beach house that you claim is "your property."  If there are NO free societies out there, then this is truly unfortunate, but maybe it tells you something about the true nature of our ethical dilemma here on earth, and what is necessay to cope with it.

So you don't think George Washington and our founding fathers made a choice?  And an ability to construct the government you want is what's irrelevant.  People have a certain WILL that a certain type of government is in place.  Most people have opinions on what government should or should not do, and this has LED to democratic revolutions. 

[moda0306]

Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

Exaaactly.  If we can't come up with an established system on how property is to be defined, and disputes setted, then everything is up to "cooperation," and we know people only cooperate to the extent that they deem it beneficial to their interest, which thereby leaves the others' decision implicitly under duress.

The powerful are going to laugh their asses off at those who "disagree" with them.  Not "cooperate" with them.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

Please go back to the reams of discussions we've had on ownership man. We have covered this subject at such length it's ridiculous. 

And no, two people disagreeing on ownership does not need to ever, ever result in someone being shot. That is a choice. Giving certain humans the authority to use guns against everyone who does not submit does not solve any of these problems. But we've been over that topic about 100 times also.

Can you tell me why it's bad for people to shoot at each other? Why is that not a good solution to a problem? If it's not....then why is a good solution when only one party (government humans) have overwhelming force? Why is the latter a solution to the problem of the former (if you think it's a problem)?

[Kshartle]

Most people have opinions on what government should or should not do, and this has LED to democratic revolutions.

People had opinions that the gods needed to be appeased, and this has LED to child sacrifice.