Rational Mysticism?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm not sure why that is supposed to matter. If a war is required, a war will be fought.

It matters because that's not liberty. You claimed we have, "the liberty to revisit the delegation of government power". But if we do so, heavily armed goons will attack us with extreme prejudice. That's not real liberty, man. Calling that choice "liberty" is the equivalent of calling the choice to pay coercive income taxes on your labor "liberty". Sure, you can choose not to pay, but it won't stop the federal Mafia from breaking down your door and hauling you away like a dog.

Again, that's not liberty, and it should tell you all you need to know about the myth of "delegated" powers. The government doesn't serve us, we serve the government. In the government's view, we are a resource to be exploited.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, it's not clear. Walk me through it in the most basic terms.

By saying that robbery and extortion is derivative of the law and government, are you meaning to say that robbery and extortion can only be defined by what the government says it is? That the acts of robbery and extortion, outside the existence of government, aren't really robbery and extortion at all? That for something to qualify as robbery or extortion requires government and man-made laws declaring it so?

It seems like you are saying just that. If not, feel free to correct me. But if this is your claim, it's incorrect. Robbery and extortion are only derivative of natural law, which in fact is not derivative on the institution of any government at all. In other words, in a state of anarchy, you would not be justified in going around robbing and extorting other free men. Such actions would naturally be seen as unjust, and you would likely end up getting your throat slit.

"Robbery" and "extortion" imply the violation of the law; the law does not exist without a political and administrative process whereby it is agreed upon, disseminated, and administered; this process has costs; those costs must be borne if we will that this process exists in the first place. Calling these costs "robbery" is putting the cart before the horse. There is no "robbery" without first paying the costs you characterize as "robbery."

Not that I concede that your characterization of government activity is valid in any other way, say morally perhaps.

Also, property itself is a social construct, or a function of collective will. If you as a solitary individual believe that you have exclusive rights to a particular resource, and no one else agrees with you and contests your ownership via force, what is won is plunder not property. Property depends upon a social order that acknowledges and collaboratively protects it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

It matters because that's not liberty. You claimed we have, "the liberty to revisit the delegation of government power". But if we do so, heavily armed goons will attack us with extreme prejudice. That's not real liberty, man. Calling that choice "liberty" is the equivalent of calling the choice to pay coercive income taxes on your labor "liberty". Sure, you can choose not to pay, but it won't stop the federal Mafia from breaking down your door and hauling you away like a dog.

Again, that's not liberty, and it should tell you all you need to know about the myth of "delegated" powers. The government doesn't serve us, we serve the government. In the government's view, we are a resource to be exploited.

Real liberty has consequences. If you aren't willing to bear them, that is your election, but it doesn't change reality. The choice to exercise liberty doesn't guarantee that there won't be costs or obstacles, because every choice in life comes with costs and obstacles.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

"Robbery" and "extortion" imply the violation of the law; the law does not exist without a political and administrative process whereby it is agreed upon, disseminated, and administered; this process has costs; those costs must be borne if we will that this process exists in the first place. Calling these costs "robbery" is putting the cart before the horse. There is no "robbery" without first paying the costs you characterize as "robbery."

This is still totally incorrect. Robbery and extortion imply a violation of *natural law*, not just man-made law. Meaning, even in a state of nature, robbery and extortion of other men will provoke a harsh correction, as they are violations of the laws of nature. No government, taxes, or administrative overhead is necessary to determine this or figure it out, either. It's simply intuitive.

Therefore, robbery and extortion are objectively immoral, unjust crimes, regardless of the presence of government and its man-made laws.

Also, property itself is a social construct, or a function of collective will. If you as a solitary individual believe that you have exclusive rights to a particular resource, and no one else agrees with you and contests your ownership via force, what is won is plunder not property. Property depends upon a social order that acknowledges and collaboratively protects it.

This is false. Property isn't property just because a bunch of people say so, it's property because a man mixes his time and labor to produce something of value out of nothing. And just because a group of people can steal it and call it "plunder" or "taxes" doesn't mean it isn't property.

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Real liberty has consequences. If you aren't willing to bear them, that is your election, but it doesn't change reality. The choice to exercise liberty doesn't guarantee that there won't be costs or obstacles, because every choice in life comes with costs and obstacles.

That's comical, no? I mean, based on your nebulous definition of liberty, we could say that the peasants of the old Soviet Union who lived under Joseph Stalin had liberty, since they always had the "liberty" to storm the machine gun nests and barbed-wire walls surrounding them.

Methinks you don't have a firm grasp of half the concepts you are discussing. No offense or anything.

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

If one owns property, and he works together with others that own their own property to protect each other's property (included in that might be to higher others, perhaps non-owners, to help protect the property), then that would be a form of protection that exists without political delegation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Reeks of statism.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That's comical, no? I mean, based on your nebulous definition of liberty, we could say that the peasants of the old Soviet Union who lived under Joseph Stalin had liberty, since they always had the "liberty" to storm the machine gun nests and barbed-wire walls surrounding them.

Methinks you don't have a firm grasp of half the concepts you are discussing. No offense or anything.

None taken.

I would advise specializing in one fallacy, in your case begging the question rather than amphiboly. Liberty might indicate the presence of an autonomous will capable of making its own choices which is the sense in which I have used it here, or it might refer to a state of affairs within which individual rights are acknowledged and protected collaboratively. But although the two senses are related, they cannot be used interchangeably, despite your attempt to do just that.

[Dreamliner]

If there is a God he's probably got Ayn Rand in time-out right now.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

This is still totally incorrect. Robbery and extortion imply a violation of *natural law*, not just man-made law. Meaning, even in a state of nature, robbery and extortion of other men will provoke a harsh correction, as they are violations of the laws of nature. No government, taxes, or administrative overhead is necessary to determine this or figure it out, either. It's simply intuitive.

Therefore, robbery and extortion are objectively immoral, unjust crimes, regardless of the presence of government and its man-made laws.



This is false. Property isn't property just because a bunch of people say so, it's property because a man mixes his time and labor to produce something of value out of nothing. And just because a group of people can steal it and call it "plunder" or "taxes" doesn't mean it isn't property.

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

I would suggest some additional observation of nature before attempting to formulate any more "natural laws." Does the eagle rob the osprey when he relieves him of his fish? Does the lion extort the leopard when he steals his antelope kill? And what about the creatures that are relieved of their lives under the *laws* of nature, has murder been committed as well?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I would suggest some additional observation of nature before attempting to formulate any more "natural laws." Does the eagle rob the osprey when he relieves him of his fish? Does the lion extort the leopard when he steals his antelope kill? And what about the creatures that are relieved of their lives under the *laws* of nature, has murder been committed as well?

Unlike humans, animals aren't capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so the laws of nature apply differently.

Imagine the state of human society if we stopped recognizing rights wholesale and went on pure instinct.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by Burke

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

Burke, is this the standard method of persuasion with regard to objectivism? Pointing out to the listener that your founding matron hated him?

I never have considered the idea of going up to people and telling them that Lysander Spooner hated them but wanted them to be free. I don't worship Ron Paul, but he doesn't talk down to me. Plus I really do appreciate the time saving element of a message that can be summed up in a short paragraph rather than 1000 pages.

How can reason be a unifying force when everybody has his own idea of what is reasonable and what is not? Experience is a part of reason. It cannot be boiled down to a one size fits all philosophy. Freedom, on the other hand, is an absolute. Either you are free, or you are not.

[Burke]

Rand held that we should deal with one another by trade and not by force and that it's the purpose of govt to protect us from others who use force as a way of dealing with people who are doing nothing wrong themselves. But she developed this view as part of and as a consequence of a wider philosophy, of one that was founded on reason and self-interest.

Libertarians have taken her views on the use of force as an out of context primary, like a Bible commandment that we should use unthinkingly. This can be said to be exactly the kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) she opposed.

It's the kind of thinking that leads some lunatics to claim that the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear nukes.

Our highest value is our own life, more specifically, the life possible to is as a rational beings.

That means a morality of rational self-interest.

That means dealing with one another by trade and not by force.

That means having the right of self-defense.

That means having a way of insuring that the use of force is used in a way that we can all have confidence that it is being used in self-defense only.

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

"Competing govts," as libertarians advocate are no govt, no final authority.

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

But, of course, you have to have a population of rational people for anything to work.

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

And what happens when the government with a monopoly on force at its disposal, along with thousands of tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons, becomes tyrannical?

Then what? Kneel down and pray?

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Anarchists don't want to abolish the institution of government because it commits wrongs, anarchists want to abolish the institution of government because they believe that no person or group of persons should possess a legalized monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

If robbery, slavery, and murder are wrong for one, then they are wrong for all.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

Think about what you're saying here. If people are nothing more to you than "millions of little thugs", then how can it be considered productive to allow a small group of them to create a gigantic monopoly on the use of aggressive force? Do you think the creation of government automatically turns "little thugs" into "little angels"?

This is pretty simply stuff. If you believe people are generally good, then there's no need for government. If you believe people are generally bad, then the last thing you'd ever want to create is government.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

Why should any man be allowed to rule another man's life?

Can you provide a legitimate justification for this?

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

Tell me, what's rational about Ayn Rand advocating for voluntary free markets on one hand while advocating for the primacy of involuntary government monopolies on the other? That's not rational, it's nonsense.

As this thread has demonstrated, there's no morally or intellectually consistent argument against anarchy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

None taken.

I would advise specializing in one fallacy, in your case begging the question rather than amphiboly. Liberty might indicate the presence of an autonomous will capable of making its own choices which is the sense in which I have used it here, or it might refer to a state of affairs within which individual rights are acknowledged and protected collaboratively. But although the two senses are related, they cannot be used interchangeably, despite your attempt to do just that.

You can claim all the phantom fallacies you want, but the fact still remains that we don't have the liberty to revisit the delegation of power you fictitiously believe we gave government.

[Row6]

Humans are social animals who owe not only their survival but their culture - including concepts like "anarchy" - to the pack. Pretending we are autonomous beings who have some right to free associate and contract with other autonomous beings apart from social concerns is a modern philosophical luxury imagined by those who are as socialized and as dependent as the next guy - and more so than our ancestors - while riding the subway to work.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Row6

Humans are social animals who owe not only their survival but their culture - including concepts like "anarchy" - to the pack. Pretending we are autonomous beings who have some right to free associate and contract with other autonomous beings apart from social concerns is a modern philosophical luxury imagined by those who are as socialized and as dependent as the next guy - and more so than our ancestors - while riding the subway to work.

Take a look, Burke. Look at who's arguing on your side.

How much more obvious can it be that you've lost the debate?

[Burke]

There will always be people who want to misuse govt to exploit others.

And they will always rise to power from anarchy when it exists.

While the helpless little anarchists stand around whining that the problem is "government" instead of bad government.

Anarchists are little more than pacifists letting others do their fighting for them.

And stabbing them in the back while they do it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You speak of "government" and "bad government" as if there is a discernible difference between the two. There's not.

Government = legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force

Adding "bad" in front of "legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force" is redundant.

Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Take a look, Burke. Look at who's arguing on your side.

How much more obvious can it be that you've lost the debate?

I doubt Burke would agree with much of what I wrote, but then again, if you haven't noticed, you're on your own side by yourself almost all the time.

[Burke]

"Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?"

Good govt benefits everyone.

It's necessary for self-defense.

No one has the right to expect others to not act to defend themselves.

Whining that others do so is supporting criminals and other exploiters.

Referring to this as "lording over and ruling" others is silly rhetoric.