Gyroscopic Investing

It is always helpful in a discussion to make sure that we are all using consistent definitions of terms. In a discussion about the nature of government, we need a definition of the term "government".

For a definition to be valid, it must provide a description that applies to all entities that it is supposed to define, and excludes all entities that it is not supposed to define. There can also be optional components, but all of the mandatory components must be applicable.

For example, a reasonably accurate definition of "pencil" could be:

A writing instrument that uses a non-permanent marking material, usually based on graphite, and is not a dry-erase whiteboard marker.

This excludes pens (they use ink) and magic markers (they are permanent). It includes colored pencils (which don't use graphite).

So given that as an example and a definition of "definition", how would you define "government"?

A group of indivduals who claim the right of a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area. No one outside of this group is permitted to use force. No one outside of the group can use force against this group also.

Kshartle wrote: A group of individuals who claim the right of a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area. No one outside of this group is permitted to use force. No one outside of the group can use force against this group also.

Fairly close, but not quite correct. Remember that even most governments recognize the right of force in self-defense. I know you think self-defense isn't force, but that's not quite right: it is justifiable force.

My definition would be:

"A group of individuals who claim the right to force others to interact with them, and
for which the consensus in the society is that they do have that right."

This excludes common criminals and groups thereof, for which the consensus in society is that they don't have that right.

Good thread.

What consists as "consensus?"  Above 50% of people?

So does that make places like N Korea NOT government?

And what if it's a multi-level governmental system?  The federal government recognizes the force of my local police as legitimate.  That means it's not really a monopoly.

moda0306 wrote: Good thread.

What consists as "consensus?"  Above 50% of people?

No, that it is considered tin-foil-hat material to question its legitimacy.

moda0306 wrote:
So does that make places like N Korea NOT government?

See above.

moda0306 wrote:
And what if it's a multi-level governmental system?  The federal government recognizes the force of my local police as legitimate.  That means it's not really a monopoly.

If the feds want to intervene, they can override the states and localities, but if they don't, they are in essence franchising the lower levels to act within a certain limited authority. Nonetheless, there is a final unappealable "authority" that claims jurisdiction, so it's still a governmental system.

Libertarian666 wrote: Fairly close, but not quite correct. Remember that even most governments recognize the right of force in self-defense. I know you think self-defense isn't force, but that's not quite right: it is justifiable force.

My definition would be:

"A group of individuals who claim the right to force others to interact with them, and
for which the consensus in the society is that they do have that right."

This excludes common criminals and groups thereof, for which the consensus in society is that they don't have that right.

self-defense is not the use of force, it can be the use of violence however. It is always and forever legitimate.

What is a legitimate use of force? Scooping up a child running into the road? Is that force since the child wanted to run that way? I suppose someone could try to make the case that this is force but they would be excluding reason.

The consensus has nothing to do with anything. Most governments throughout history operate without consensus. Even our president only got 1/6 of the population to vote for him.

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Good thread.

What consists as "consensus?"  Above 50% of people?

No, that it is considered tin-foil-hat material to question its legitimacy.

moda0306 wrote:
So does that make places like N Korea NOT government?

See above.

moda0306 wrote:
And what if it's a multi-level governmental system?  The federal government recognizes the force of my local police as legitimate.  That means it's not really a monopoly.

If the feds want to intervene, they can override the states and localities, but if they don't, they are in essence franchising the lower levels to act within a certain limited authority. Nonetheless, there is a final unappealable "authority" that claims jurisdiction, so it's still a governmental system.

Considered by WHOM to be tin-foil hat territory?  I don't think it's tin foil hat territory to question the government's legitimacy. I think a lot of other things we discuss is a bit tin foil hat, but these nebulous terms aren't helping me agree on a definition with you, which I'd love.

The feds can only intervene to the extent the states/localities will allow it... now it has the physical strength to overcome that, but not the universally recognized infinite authority. 

I think we need to clarify this before moving forward.  I'm not trying to argue this time... simply agree on a definition.

moda0306 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Good thread.

What consists as "consensus?"  Above 50% of people?

No, that it is considered tin-foil-hat material to question its legitimacy.

moda0306 wrote:
So does that make places like N Korea NOT government?

See above.

moda0306 wrote:
And what if it's a multi-level governmental system?  The federal government recognizes the force of my local police as legitimate.  That means it's not really a monopoly.

If the feds want to intervene, they can override the states and localities, but if they don't, they are in essence franchising the lower levels to act within a certain limited authority. Nonetheless, there is a final unappealable "authority" that claims jurisdiction, so it's still a governmental system.

Considered by WHOM to be tin-foil hat territory?  I don't think it's tin foil hat territory to question the government's legitimacy. I think a lot of other things we discuss is a bit tin foil hat, but these nebulous terms aren't helping me agree on a definition with you, which I'd love.

Let's say you were having a disagreement with the government, and you got up in public and said "I don't recognize the government's legitimacy to tell me what to do, so I'm going to ignore them". Then when government agents came to take you away for whatever infraction they consider you guilty of, would people agree with you, or would they say "Whew, that was a dangerous lunatic" and be happy to be "protected" against you?

moda0306 wrote:
The feds can only intervene to the extent the states/localities will allow it... now it has the physical strength to overcome that, but not the universally recognized infinite authority. 

I think we need to clarify this before moving forward.  I'm not trying to argue this time... simply agree on a definition.

The feds can steamroller any locality or state, and do so whenever they want to. They have overwhelming firepower and the air of legitimacy under the "supremacy" clause. If this were not true, medical marijuana would be unquestionably legal in those states that have legalized it.

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: No, that it is considered tin-foil-hat material to question its legitimacy.
See above.
If the feds want to intervene, they can override the states and localities, but if they don't, they are in essence franchising the lower levels to act within a certain limited authority. Nonetheless, there is a final unappealable "authority" that claims jurisdiction, so it's still a governmental system.

Considered by WHOM to be tin-foil hat territory?  I don't think it's tin foil hat territory to question the government's legitimacy. I think a lot of other things we discuss is a bit tin foil hat, but these nebulous terms aren't helping me agree on a definition with you, which I'd love.

Let's say you were having a disagreement with the government, and you got up in public and said "I don't recognize the government's legitimacy to tell me what to do, so I'm going to ignore them". Then when government agents came to take you away for whatever infraction they consider you guilty of, would people agree with you, or would they say "Whew, that was a dangerous lunatic" and be happy to be "protected" against you?

moda0306 wrote:
The feds can only intervene to the extent the states/localities will allow it... now it has the physical strength to overcome that, but not the universally recognized infinite authority. 

I think we need to clarify this before moving forward.  I'm not trying to argue this time... simply agree on a definition.

The feds can steamroller any locality or state, and do so whenever they want to. They have overwhelming firepower and the air of legitimacy under the "supremacy" clause. If this were not true, medical marijuana would be unquestionably legal in those states that have legalized it.

Tech,

Sorry to keep harping on this, but what do you mean when you say "people?"  Some "people" will call the government the equivalent of a dangerous lunatic, but other "people" will feel protected.  Do you mean over 50% of people?  Over 90%?  99%?  100%?

We live in a country where every individual's political opinions are thought to be "crazy" by someone else.  You can't group us all together.  We need a more solid answer on this.



The feds, we can agree, have the physical ability to do just about everything, but most people (eventually, over 50%) are going to eventually think and act as if the feds are totally out of control and outside their legal authority... now they won't be able to defend themselves, but the federal government would eventually be seen as an illegitimate entity by well-over 50% of the population, and outside its legal authority.



You seem to be carrying a bit of resentment into this, and I'm just looking for a definition.  Your definitions seem to have unreasonable amounts of ambiguity in them. 

moda0306 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Considered by WHOM to be tin-foil hat territory?  I don't think it's tin foil hat territory to question the government's legitimacy. I think a lot of other things we discuss is a bit tin foil hat, but these nebulous terms aren't helping me agree on a definition with you, which I'd love.

Let's say you were having a disagreement with the government, and you got up in public and said "I don't recognize the government's legitimacy to tell me what to do, so I'm going to ignore them". Then when government agents came to take you away for whatever infraction they consider you guilty of, would people agree with you, or would they say "Whew, that was a dangerous lunatic" and be happy to be "protected" against you?

moda0306 wrote:
The feds can only intervene to the extent the states/localities will allow it... now it has the physical strength to overcome that, but not the universally recognized infinite authority. 

I think we need to clarify this before moving forward.  I'm not trying to argue this time... simply agree on a definition.

The feds can steamroller any locality or state, and do so whenever they want to. They have overwhelming firepower and the air of legitimacy under the "supremacy" clause. If this were not true, medical marijuana would be unquestionably legal in those states that have legalized it.

Tech,

Sorry to keep harping on this, but what do you mean when you say "people?"  Some "people" will call the government the equivalent of a dangerous lunatic, but other "people" will feel protected.  Do you mean over 50% of people?  Over 90%?  99%?  100%?

moda0306 wrote:
Enough of the population that you couldn't resist successfully.

We live in a country where every individual's political opinions are thought to be "crazy" by someone else.  You can't group us all together.  We need a more solid answer on this.

moda0306 wrote:
My point is that almost no one doubts the legitimacy of their use of force. This has nothing to do with your (or my) political opinions; it's just a fact.

The feds, we can agree, have the physical ability to do just about everything, but most people (eventually, over 50%) are going to eventually think and act as if the feds are totally out of control and outside their legal authority... now they won't be able to defend themselves, but the federal government would eventually be seen as an illegitimate entity by well-over 50% of the population, and outside its legal authority.

Then it would no longer be a government, but just a gang of criminals, and would be in danger of rebellion at any moment.

moda0306 wrote:
You seem to be carrying a bit of resentment into this, and I'm just looking for a definition.  Your definitions seem to have unreasonable amounts of ambiguity in them.

I don't know what you mean about resentment. I think my definition is very clear and easily applied to any entity commonly considered to be a government, and not to any entity that is not commonly considered to be a government.

Is the US government a government? Yes, because it can make people interact with them unwillingly and almost no one doubts its legitimacy in doing so.

Is the Washington state government a government? Yes, for the same reason,

Is the Mafia a government? No, because people don't consider its use of force to make people interact with them as legitimate.

Try it yourself. Is there any organization or group of people who are usually referred to as government that doesn't meet this definition, or any that does meet the definition that isn't considered government?