If Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution what would the 4th branch be

[Mountaineer]

I meant rational.

It's more accurate for me to say non-fallacious. Do you have a non-fallacious argument for your statements?

ir·ra·tion·al

adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. 
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals. 

I might not be using the term correctly when I say your beliefs about the certainty of violence and government are irrational. Then again......maybe I'm using the term correctly.

Regardless......the argument from history or that God said so are certainly fallacious arguments, and if those are your only reason for the beliefs then I think that does in fact make the beliefs irrational (though ultimately they might still be correct/true).

K,

I disagree that the point of my statement is irrational, fallacious, false or without reason.  Again, my point is:

Use of force by individuals or governments and whether we can envision a society that operates without that force or violence DOES NOT MATTER.  Mankind is not going to change to that extent and enjoy a forceless society.  All effort put into trying to explain why that is true or not true is wasted and of no value (other than entertainment). 

If you eliminate natural history and God (revelation) as authorities to validate that statement, and you choose to say that a logical proof is necessary for you to accept the statement ..... there is no where to turn.  Thus, I will leave it to others to play in your game of sometimes changing rules - from my perspective, that game is irrational, but that does not matter either.  So, peace be with you and enjoy the mental masturbation (I do not mean that meanly, but that is how I see it.)  Next topic?

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

If I have to pick a monarch, I'd go with a supremely intelligent A.I. like that depicted in Charles Stross' Singularity Sky.  Besides  outlawing time travel so that its existence could not be unmade and its paranoid habit of blowing up a few other planets, it was pretty decent. But we don't have one of those yet.

I just want to add that the AI was called the Eschaton. I figured that the word came from eschatology, but until I saw Xan's post in the abortion thread, I thought the author had coined it.

[Ad Orientem]

Holy cow! I see I can't take a couple days off from this forum, lol. Having just glanced at the 5 pages that have materialized in my absence I will point to a couple things that might be of interest on the subject of governmental philosophy.

An Explanation of Anarcho-Monarchist Distributism
This is a video on an interesting subject from the even more interesting perspective of a devout Roman Catholic.  (Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic.)

and...

Democracy: The God that Failed by noted champion of the Austrian School Hans-Herman Hoppe

[Pointedstick]

Democracy: The God that Failed by noted champion of the Austrian School Hans-Herman Hoppe

Highly recommended, even if you're not a monarchist.

[Gosso]

Ad,

Thanks for the book recommendation and the link to the video.  One quote that stood out from the video was from CS Lewis:

[quote=CS Lewis]Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach--men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison. - CS Lewis[/quote]

Here is another quote from Sir John A Macdonald on how a (constitutional) monarchy can create a strong social bond among all the citizens, and slightly humble the politicians:

[quote=Sir John A Macdonald]John A. Macdonald, speaking in 1865 about the proposals for the upcoming Confederation of Canada, said:

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle – the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party – to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all."[27] [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism_in_Canada

Fascinating stuff!

[Ad Orientem]

1861 was a bad year for slavery. On March 4th of that year Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of these United States and quickly saw the country collapse into secession and civil war, mostly over slavery. Four years and 600,000 corpses later slavery was effectively ended in this country. Meanwhile on March 3rd, the day before Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, His Imperial Majesty Alexander II Czar Emperor and Absolute Autocrat of all Russia abolished slavery throughout one sixth of the world with a stroke of a pen.

Just some food for thought...

[Libertarian666]

1861 was a bad year for slavery. On March 4th of that year Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of these United States and quickly saw the country collapse into secession and civil war, mostly over slavery. Four years and 600,000 corpses later slavery was effectively ended in this country. Meanwhile on March 3rd, the day before Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, His Imperial Majesty Alexander II Czar Emperor and Absolute Autocrat of all Russia abolished slavery throughout one sixth of the world with a stroke of a pen.

Just some food for thought...

Lincoln was a dictator and tyrant, and deserved what he got, only sooner.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm defending slavery; I'm not.

[Kshartle]

Lincoln was a dictator and tyrant, and deserved what he got, only sooner.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm defending slavery; I'm not.

What is more pro slavery than forcibly conscripting people into your Army and ordering them to their deaths by the hundreds of thousands?

Of course Lincoln was pro slavery. Look at what he did as well as most of what he wrote/said.

[moda0306]

Lincoln was a dictator and tyrant, and deserved what he got, only sooner.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm defending slavery; I'm not.

What is more pro slavery than forcibly conscripting people into your Army and ordering them to their deaths by the hundreds of thousands?

Of course Lincoln was pro slavery. Look at what he did as well as most of what he wrote/said.

I would greatly agree with you.  However, all the state/city governments of the South, I'd argue, were just as tyrannical in their attempt to recognize 1/3 of the population as property.

Though I doubt I'll get much of an argument from you that a certain government is tyrannical .

[Pointedstick]

I would greatly agree with you.  However, all the state/city governments of the South, I'd argue, were just as tyrannical in their attempt to recognize 1/3 of the population as property.

Though I doubt I'll get much of an argument from you that a certain government is tyrannical .

The whole American civil war fiasco was sort of a debate over private slavery vs public slavery, if you think about it. The south supported private slavery (in turn supported by the government, of course). Lincoln didn't particularly care about ending private slavery, but he did care about preventing secession, and to that effect, he was willing to implement public slavery through conscription and income taxes.

Public slavery won the battle, and we were left with an ever-rising income tax burden and 110 years of conscription. And of course it was nothing like the public slavery of communism.

[moda0306]

I would greatly agree with you.  However, all the state/city governments of the South, I'd argue, were just as tyrannical in their attempt to recognize 1/3 of the population as property.

Though I doubt I'll get much of an argument from you that a certain government is tyrannical .

The whole American civil war fiasco was sort of a debate over private slavery vs public slavery, if you think about it. The south supported private slavery (in turn supported by the government, of course). Lincoln didn't particularly care about ending private slavery, but he did care about preventing secession, and to that effect, he was willing to implement public slavery through conscription and income taxes.

Public slavery won the battle, and we were left with an ever-rising income tax burden and 110 years of conscription. And of course it was nothing like the public slavery of communism.

The Confederate government used conscription as well.

One thing I wonder, if the South's main goal (leading to Secession) was to preserve slavery (it obviously was), and the North's main goal (leading to not accepting that Secession) was to preserve the Union (it obviously was), why didn't Lincoln make a bunch of concessions to the slave-holders?

It seems to me that to at least some degree, the North "cared" about slavery, at least to the extent that they weren't willing to concede a lot to woo the Southern states back away from Secession.

[Ad Orientem]

The Confederate government used conscription as well.

One thing I wonder, if the South's main goal (leading to Secession) was to preserve slavery (it obviously was), and the North's main goal (leading to not accepting that Secession) was to preserve the Union (it obviously was), why didn't Lincoln make a bunch of concessions to the slave-holders?

It seems to me that to at least some degree, the North "cared" about slavery, at least to the extent that they weren't willing to concede a lot to woo the Southern states back away from Secession.

In fairness to Lincoln who is not my favorite president, but not the worst IMHO, he did make it clear before he took office that he was prepared to agree to or at least negotiate on anything except allowing slavery to expand beyond where it then existed. That was a deal breaker for the Southern slaveocracy and that is where Lincoln drew his line in the sand.

[Libertarian666]

The Confederate government used conscription as well.

One thing I wonder, if the South's main goal (leading to Secession) was to preserve slavery (it obviously was), and the North's main goal (leading to not accepting that Secession) was to preserve the Union (it obviously was), why didn't Lincoln make a bunch of concessions to the slave-holders?

It seems to me that to at least some degree, the North "cared" about slavery, at least to the extent that they weren't willing to concede a lot to woo the Southern states back away from Secession.

In fairness to Lincoln who is not my favorite president, but not the worst IMHO, he did make it clear before he took office that he was prepared to agree to or at least negotiate on anything except allowing slavery to expand beyond where it then existed. That was a deal breaker for the Southern slaveocracy and that is where Lincoln drew his line in the sand.

That would have been a reasonable position for Lincoln to take... if the South had wanted to stay in the union. Since they didn't, Lincoln had no authority over them other than "might makes right".

[moda0306]

The Confederate government used conscription as well.

One thing I wonder, if the South's main goal (leading to Secession) was to preserve slavery (it obviously was), and the North's main goal (leading to not accepting that Secession) was to preserve the Union (it obviously was), why didn't Lincoln make a bunch of concessions to the slave-holders?

It seems to me that to at least some degree, the North "cared" about slavery, at least to the extent that they weren't willing to concede a lot to woo the Southern states back away from Secession.

In fairness to Lincoln who is not my favorite president, but not the worst IMHO, he did make it clear before he took office that he was prepared to agree to or at least negotiate on anything except allowing slavery to expand beyond where it then existed. That was a deal breaker for the Southern slaveocracy and that is where Lincoln drew his line in the sand.

That would have been a reasonable position for Lincoln to take... if the South had wanted to stay in the union. Since they didn't, Lincoln had no authority over them other than "might makes right".

I suppose it's problematic that tech has hidden my posts, but I feel the need to respond to this.

1) There is no explicit right to secede within the Constitution.  This "right" is debatable (if we can even figure out how a state gets a "right" to begin with... it seems odd that in an anarchist mindset that any governmental entity, in and of itself, has any kind of "right").

2) Even if their were, the Constitution is simply a set of rules set up by those lucky enough to have power... if we truly do have Individual Rights, then, quite simply, we have these rights independent of the Constitution or state governments.  States don't have "rights" just because the federal government "gave" it to them.  Individuals have "rights" because they're self-aware, moral, etc, etc beings.  If "states" have rights simply because the powers that be said they do, then did blacks NOT have rights for the same reason?

3) Did "the South" really want to Secede?  We use the term "the South" pretty loosely, but really, we're talking about a bunch of individuals, and governments that may-or-may-not have had the 51%'s interest in mind.  Interestingly, many in the South wanted to "Secede" from their plantation, but were assaulted if they tried, and were called "slaves."

So by "the South" wanting to secede you mean that the majority of the slave-owning economic/political interests of the South wanted to secede, I would agree. Maybe even a majority of white residents of the South.

But if there aren't really any such thing as "States rights" under the premise of individual sovereignty, then the only thing that should have any right to "secede" should be an individual.  If 51% of my MN suburb decided for ME to "secede" my entire town from MN, when I WANT to be a MN citizen (even if it means higher taxes), then was that a legitimate Secession, or just another thugocracy making decisions for me?

Simply put, saying that "The South" wanted to Secede, while rhetorically convenient when trying to explain generalities of the politics of that time, is the same thing as saying "Society" wants Social Security and public transportation.

[moda0306]

And PS... this is a debate under the premise that rights actually DO exist, and on the premise of individual sovereignty.

[Kshartle]

And PS... this is a debate under the premise that rights actually DO exist, and on the premise of individual sovereignty.

I can work with those premises. 

What is the debate in a nutshell?

[moda0306]

And PS... this is a debate under the premise that rights actually DO exist, and on the premise of individual sovereignty.

I can work with those premises. 

What is the debate in a nutshell?

Whether states have "rights," mostly, in any non self-referential, natural sense.

[Kshartle]

And PS... this is a debate under the premise that rights actually DO exist, and on the premise of individual sovereignty.

I can work with those premises. 

What is the debate in a nutshell?

Whether states have "rights," mostly, in any non self-referential, natural sense.

Ohhh, most definately not. Even you beleive in the existance of human rights, which I do, I can't see anyway to logically assign some different set of rights to a group. Doing that actually violates the rights of individuals as I think you pointed out.

The Constitution just puts down the violation of rights in black and white. That being said, at the time the violation and lack of rights for humans was the dominate belief, just like human sacrifice appeasing the gods and leeching people to cure illness were dominate beleifs at some point. The Constitution recognized that at least some people had rights and tried to put in some safeguards against their violation. Unfortunately this can't be done by creating an agency of violence that's only tool and very existance depends on the violation of human rights.

[moda0306]

I can work with those premises. 

What is the debate in a nutshell?

Whether states have "rights," mostly, in any non self-referential, natural sense.

Ohhh, most definately not. Even you beleive in the existance of human rights, which I do, I can't see anyway to logically assign some different set of rights to a group. Doing that actually violates the rights of individuals as I think you pointed out.

The Constitution just puts down the violation of rights in black and white. That being said, at the time the violation and lack of rights for humans was the dominate belief, just like human sacrifice appeasing the gods and leeching people to cure illness were dominate beleifs at some point. The Constitution recognized that at least some people had rights and tried to put in some safeguards against their violation. Unfortunately this can't be done by creating an agency of violence that's only tool and very existance depends on the violation of human rights.

So based on the anarcho-capitalist premises I often see laid out, the Civil War was just a war between tyrant, forceful government agents who wanted control for different reasons.  Even if some "supported" war or state secession, these are both just statist actions that assume a government's superiority over the individual, both are false based on anarcho-capitalist logic.

At least that's how I see their logic being applied to the Civil War... yet often I hear people who are libertarian (bordering on anarcho-capitalists) talking about state's rights and I just lose my mind... What rights?  How does a forceful entity have "rights?"  It's like saying that the Bloods have rights that the Crips don't, or rights that individuals don't, or rights against the Crips.  No... they're both gangs of thugs and innocent victims of them BOTH are the ones with rights, even if some of the victims of the Crips supports the Bloods... this doesn't mean that the Bloods have any special "rights" as a group (obviously, any individual obtains individual rights).

Keep in mind, this is how I see the analogy working within a mindset of pretty pure anarcho-capitalist mindset.  Obviously I have other views, and don't buy into ALL the premises of that moral/economic philosophy.  But we must at least be A) logically consistent, or B) just admit that we don't know everything, we aren't working with deductive logic, and we're in an ambiguous zone where we just feel our way through a subject rather than try to have a 100% logically certain answer.

[Kshartle]

Whether states have "rights," mostly, in any non self-referential, natural sense.

Ohhh, most definately not. Even you beleive in the existance of human rights, which I do, I can't see anyway to logically assign some different set of rights to a group. Doing that actually violates the rights of individuals as I think you pointed out.

The Constitution just puts down the violation of rights in black and white. That being said, at the time the violation and lack of rights for humans was the dominate belief, just like human sacrifice appeasing the gods and leeching people to cure illness were dominate beleifs at some point. The Constitution recognized that at least some people had rights and tried to put in some safeguards against their violation. Unfortunately this can't be done by creating an agency of violence that's only tool and very existance depends on the violation of human rights.

At least that's how I see their logic being applied to the Civil War... yet often I hear people who are libertarian (bordering on anarcho-capitalists) talking about state's rights and I just lose my mind... What rights?  How does a forceful entity have "rights?"  It's like saying that the Bloods have rights that the Crips don't, or rights that individuals don't, or rights against the Crips.  No... they're both gangs of thugs and innocent victims of them BOTH are the ones with rights, even if some of the victims of the Crips supports the Bloods... this doesn't mean that the Bloods have any special "rights" as a group (obviously, any individual obtains individual rights).

Libertarian hypocrisy is far more useful to the thugs in power than all the liberal/statist trampling of human rights and overt support of violence and theft.

I prefer to point out libertarian hypocrisy when I see it since the other nastiness is so obviously vile.

[moda0306]

Ohhh, most definately not. Even you beleive in the existance of human rights, which I do, I can't see anyway to logically assign some different set of rights to a group. Doing that actually violates the rights of individuals as I think you pointed out.

The Constitution just puts down the violation of rights in black and white. That being said, at the time the violation and lack of rights for humans was the dominate belief, just like human sacrifice appeasing the gods and leeching people to cure illness were dominate beleifs at some point. The Constitution recognized that at least some people had rights and tried to put in some safeguards against their violation. Unfortunately this can't be done by creating an agency of violence that's only tool and very existance depends on the violation of human rights.

At least that's how I see their logic being applied to the Civil War... yet often I hear people who are libertarian (bordering on anarcho-capitalists) talking about state's rights and I just lose my mind... What rights?  How does a forceful entity have "rights?"  It's like saying that the Bloods have rights that the Crips don't, or rights that individuals don't, or rights against the Crips.  No... they're both gangs of thugs and innocent victims of them BOTH are the ones with rights, even if some of the victims of the Crips supports the Bloods... this doesn't mean that the Bloods have any special "rights" as a group (obviously, any individual obtains individual rights).

Libertarian hypocrisy is far more useful to the thugs in power than all the liberal/statist trampling of human rights and overt support of violence and theft.

I prefer to point out libertarian hypocrisy when I see it since the other nastiness is so obviously vile.

So if you think democracy is one of the worst forms of government, do you have even MORE of a problem with "local government" than federal?  Since it implies even more "individual participation?"

Or is it even?

Or is federal worse?

[Kshartle]

So if you think democracy is one of the worst forms of government, do you have even MORE of a problem with "local government" than federal?  Since it implies even more "individual participation?"

Or is it even?

Or is federal worse?

So I think living under the control of local government makes life much better since you're likely to have a lot more freedom. They tyrants have to be careful since they are up close.

However, from a moral standpoint, the people who support democracy are much more morally comprimised than people living under a dictatorship. At least the latter rarely have the illusion and aren't willing participants in the tyranny.

Given the choice between the two I'd much rather live in a democracy. However, it's just a more successful way to farm humans. It's like a free-range human farm and generally the livestock are a lot more productive to their masters.

Even statists can look at a dictatorship and see why it's bad. Do you wonder why that is? Why can't they turn that same lens on their precious democracy? Why is bad is one man oppresses two but if two oppress one it's like the pinnacle of humanity?

[moda0306]

So if you think democracy is one of the worst forms of government, do you have even MORE of a problem with "local government" than federal?  Since it implies even more "individual participation?"

Or is it even?

Or is federal worse?

So I think living under the control of local government makes life much better since you're likely to have a lot more freedom. They tyrants have to be careful since they are up close.

However, from a moral standpoint, the people who support democracy are much more morally comprimised than people living under a dictatorship. At least the latter rarely have the illusion and aren't willing participants in the tyranny.

Given the choice between the two I'd much rather live in a democracy. However, it's just a more successful way to farm humans. It's like a free-range human farm and generally the livestock are a lot more productive to their masters.

Even statists can look at a dictatorship and see why it's bad. Do you wonder why that is? Why can't they turn that same lens on their precious democracy? Why is bad is one man oppresses two but if two oppress one it's like the pinnacle of humanity?

Well you assume "statists" are statist because they love the state, rather than have a different set of moral priorities than yourself when it comes to individuals, only some of which is occupied by individual sovereignty.

If "NAP" or "Individual Soveriegnty" is, rather than The One Moral Truth, one of a few moral ideals that can't perfectly simultaneously exist, so it takes some compromise of each to obtain optimal balance, then The State (duh duh DUHHHH) might actually serve some purpose.

This gets back to catching the guy from walking out into traffic.  If it's so obvious that we can initiate force against another human being in that instance, we should ask ourselves why.  Why is it ok?  If NAP is SOOO obviously the One Moral Truth, how can we justify forcing someone back onto a sidewalk?

If the reason why is that there are other moral imperatives out there that compete with "Individual Sovereignty" and the "NAP," then we obviously have a logical conflict that you haven't yet mentioned.  If there are other moral imperatives besides IS and NAP:

What are they (helping others when one has abundance?  Granting the NAP/IS to non-human beings?  Worshiping a potential creator?  Being nice to people and complimenting them? A loose idea like the "golden rule?")

When do they supersede NAP (someone's life is in danger?, Someone is suffering?, an animal is suffering?)

How does one navigate these, logically?

If there is no moral imperative that exists or can ever supersede NAP/IS, then why would I ever change a baby's diaper, or stop a man from walking into traffic?

I know these questions are going to be interpreted as me just being willfully ignorant, but I'm trying to come up with a LOGICAL framework within which how to place a MORAL prioritization system, and I really don't think the NAP gives us all the tools we need.  There are competing moral imperatives that might get into why it is ok to advocate (or be an agent of) a government that violates certain aspects of NAP/IS to:

1) Prevent more unpopular violations of it, or

2) Prevent other moral imperatives from being violated, if they exist (which they appear to, since both you and I would grab the guy from walking into traffic).

[moda0306]

This idea of "competing moral imperatives" is a bit oxymoronic.

Maybe "moral ideal to be balanced against other moral ideals" is a more clumsy but more accurate way of saying it.

Somebody can coin a more smooth term for it here, I'm sure.

[Kshartle]

If there is no moral imperative that exists or can ever supersede NAP/IS, then why would I ever change a baby's diaper, or stop a man from walking into traffic?

I know these questions are going to be interpreted as me just being willfully ignorant, but I'm trying to come up with a LOGICAL framework within which how to place a MORAL prioritization system, and I really don't think the NAP gives us all the tools we need.  There are competing moral imperatives that might get into why it is ok to advocate (or be an agent of) a government that violates certain aspects of NAP/IS to:

1) Prevent more unpopular violations of it, or

2) Prevent other moral imperatives from being violated, if they exist (which they appear to, since both you and I would grab the guy from walking into traffic).

Swamped today and haven't been able to respond.

1. Ok, 99.9% of us realize that it's wrong to steal, murder, abuse etc. It's not wrong because everyone realizes it, they realize it because it's obviously wrong for specific reasons we've gone over time and time again.

2. 99.9% also realize that the diaper thing and the guy walking in traffic and using force to dress a mentally impaired person or restrain someone trying to stab themself is perfectly ok. It's not ok because everyone realizes it, they realize it because it's obvious and for specific reasons. We haven't gone over these that much.

If we understand why the first one is bad and the second one is ok and what is really happening then we can more easily see whether or not the actions of the state (redistribution of wealth and other forms of violence) can be defended by pointing to the actions in the 2nd paragraph.

I think I understand very well why paragraph number 2 actions are ok and don't violate NAP but I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts first. I feel like I'm always answering questions and it would be better to ask them and challenge the readers to try and answer.

Why is the stuff in number 2 ok and what differentiates it from the actions in number 1?