Rational Mysticism?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

You're begging the question because your argument presumes the truth of its internal analogies without proof. So your argument consists of redefining something you object to as equivalent to something thought to be bad by definition, then asking how the bad thing can be justified.

Your argument is also contradictory as it depends upon the existence of a quality of criminality that is more fundamental than its necessary preconditions such as law, government, and society.

Very well. What's the functional difference between:

- A government claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary taxes for the stated purpose of protection.

- A Mafia claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary extortion fees for the stated purpose of protection.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Very well. What's the functional difference between:

- A government claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary taxes for the stated purpose of protection.

- A Mafia claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary extortion fees for the stated purpose of protection.

My initial reaction is that a "mafia" can be considered to be a kind of shadow government that rules over a particular area of criminal enterprise. Where non-participants are affected, i.e., innocent civilians, the nature of the mafia is nothing less than criminal. Where participants are affected, the nature of the mafia is regulatory and quasi-judicial, though also infused with a criminal spirit and criminal methods. So if you really wanted to do so, you could compare the mafia to a legitimate government in the sense that it serves some of the same purposes albeit within the milieu of the criminal underworld. In other words, the criminal aspect of mafiahood is infused not via its resemblance to government proper, but rather by the nature of the mafia enterprise itself.

We might also postulate that particular kinds of governments possess an exploitative or parasitic nature themselves, something that seems quite close to the spirit of crime. This seems to be particularly true of despotisms and autocracies, coups-de-etat, and imperial governments. Basically in situations where legitimacy is replaced by force, and where the interests and even national identities of the governing class are inimical to that of the governed, we are very likely to get a government that is exploitative in a way that feels 'criminal', but this impression is a consequence of the acts and particular nature of these governments rather than the fundamental nature of government itself.

You asked earlier why government exists. Government exists because only a state can exist alongside other states without being gobbled up militarily, and a state requires a government. If we did not need to organize a state-scale common defense, there is no particular reason impelling the institution of a formal political organization. But it is necessary, and from it flows much of the cultural heritage which you appear to take for granted in your critique (as others have pointed out). It is true that the state itself presumes warfare. But without the state there is no writing, no law, no moral philosophy, no history, no technological and economic progress. Perhaps someday the state can be transcended, but that day is not yet.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

An individual can avoid taxation and/or extortion by moving away from the areas controlled by either entity.

Unless the government and/or Mafia actively prevent one from leaving, one does have the free, conscious choice to avoid the items you're complaining about.

But the gaping hole in your logic is that you don't account for free will/choice. No one forces an individual to stay a US citizen under US laws...and no mafioso prevents a person from moving either.

[Burke]

The hard cold fact is that most of the time a bad govt is better than no govt., although there are exceptions. And most of the govts that have existed have been little more than the rule of thugs.

The US Constitution, however, as envisioned by the Founders, is a fabulous document. It's not the fault of the Founders that people pay little attention to it anymore.

We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, for e.g. that are generally enforced quite energetically.

Govt properly is an institution created by rational people to protect them from irrational people. But it is not a substitute for rationality. It's no coincidence that our govt, which in its founding principles is the greatest govt in history, came into existence during the 18th century Enlightenment, the most rational period in human history. And it's no coincidence that its decline has coincided with the so-called Progressive movement, which is really an anti-Enlighteent movement.

Anarchists aren't offering a solution to anything. They're just pretending that none of the problems govts properly exist to solve would exist were there no govts.

Which is total nonsense.

A proper govt exists to protect individual rights. The Mafia exists to violate individual rights. Saying that there is no difference between a proper govt and the Mafia is like saying there is no difference between a cop and an armed robber, even though cops exist to protect us from robbers.

And, as I've written here many times before, in a rational society there would be no taxation. Govt would be supported voluntarily and, in some instances, by charging fees for its services.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

The US Constitution, however, as envisioned by the Founders, is a fabulous document. It's not the fault of the Founders that people pay little attention to it anymore.

The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper written up by a bunch of wealthy old men that basically says, "I am allowed to rob you". That's all it is.

It's an illegitimate document.

We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, for e.g. that are generally enforced quite energetically.

Yes, because the government doesn't like competition.

Govt properly is an institution created by rational people to protect them from irrational people.

This is, again, a myth. Government is created for the same reason Mafia crime syndicates are created - as a mechanism that allows one group of people to more efficiently exploit another group of people.

This is true for every government in history, including our own.

Anarchists aren't offering a solution to anything. They're just pretending that none of the problems govts properly exist to solve would exist were there no govts.

This is false. No anarchist I've ever talked to or read has said such a thing.

A proper govt exists to protect individual rights. The Mafia exists to violate individual rights.

Myth. Again, the real proper role of government is to serve as a mechanism by which one group of people can more efficiently exploit another group of people. It's the same reason Mafias exist.

Think about it. The very first thing any government must do is rob the very people it claims to protect. After all, the government is inherently broke. To function in any capacity, it must forcefully extract wealth from its own citizens.

If a government has to rob you to protect you from robbers, what's the point?

Saying that there is no difference between a proper govt and the Mafia is like saying there is no difference between a cop and an armed robber, even though cops exist to protect is from robbers.

Cops do not exist to protect us from robbers. This is another one of your many myths. In fact, cops have have no legal obligation to protect anyone from anything at all. Even our own kangaroo courts have stated as much.

For instance, look here:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

Think about what that means, Burke. You're legally obligated to pay taxes to have the government "protect" you, when in reality, the government has no legal obligation to protect you at all. You're obligated to them, but they're not obligated to you.

So what are you really paying taxes for? Are you catching on to the scam yet?

And, as I've written here many times before, in a rational society there would be no taxation. Govt would be supported voluntarily and, in some instances, by charging fees for its services.

This is fantasy talk. If people don't have to pay taxes to a government entity, they won't. In a truly rational society, people would instead opt to purchase government services (security, arbitration, etc...) from free market competitors. You know this as well as I do. A "voluntary taxation government" would collapse just as quickly as a "voluntary extortion Mafia". The idea of such an absurd thing is third-grade nonsense.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

An individual can avoid taxation and/or extortion by moving away from the areas controlled by either entity.

Unless the government and/or Mafia actively prevent one from leaving, one does have the free, conscious choice to avoid the items you're complaining about.

But the gaping hole in your logic is that you don't account for free will/choice. No one forces an individual to stay a US citizen under US laws...and no mafioso prevents a person from moving either.

So Mafia extortion rackets are justified because you have the option to flee the neighborhood? Is that really your argument?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

With regrets for even bothering, you don't have a say in who leads the Gotti family, what "services" you might owe them for, nor do you enjoy due process when Tommie Three Fingers shows up for collections. By your theory all transactions which are backed by force - whether by law or a mob - are equal, and the lawless variety of your imaginary utopia is somehow preferable. In your dreams, maybe, but we're not part of them.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

Who would establish said law and whose laws would be established in the case of disagreements about law and who would enforce said laws in the case of noncompliance??? Here in a nutshell we have the contradiction between the anarchic dream and the real and arbitrary nature of mankind.
C&G relies on a nonexistent ability of men to exist together on a voluntary and peaceable basis.
All government is a response to the nature of mankind ie. the propensity of men to murder and enslave each other.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

So Mafia extortion rackets are justified because you have the option to flee the neighborhood? Is that really your argument?

I realize you ignore a lot of what people post...but I'm surprised you ignore what you yourself post.

Since this will likely confuse you, go back and read what my post was responding to; and for added measure, look up the word "involuntary."

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Row6

With regrets for even bothering, you don't have a say in who leads the Gotti family, what "services" you might owe them for, nor do you enjoy due process when Tommie Three Fingers shows up for collections. By your theory all transactions which are backed by force - whether by law or a mob - are equal, and the lawless variety of your imaginary utopia is somehow preferable. In your dreams, maybe, but we're not part of them.

So if the Gotti family allowed you to vote for the henchmen who administer their extortion racket around the neighborhood, would the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified? If the Gotti family allowed you to to choose from among their various services (protection, arbitration, kidnapping, drug trafficking, etc...), would the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified? If the Gotti family gave you "due process" and allowed you to complain to one of their hand-picked judges who's also on the Mafia payroll, who the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified?

Of course not, and neither does the government's extortion racket.

Mafia = government

There's no function difference. There are cosmetic differences, but they both work the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I realize you ignore a lot of what people post...but I'm surprised you ignore what you yourself post.

Since this will likely confuse you, go back and read what my post was responding to; and for added measure, look up the word "involuntary."

I read it, thanks. So why did you avoid answering my question?

If I forcefully invade your home and give you the voluntary choice to either stay and die or to flee, would my invasion of your home become justified? After all, I'm giving you a choice. You can leave and go somewhere else. Nobody would be forcing you to stay. Love it or leave it, right?

So how is this any difference from the way a government or Mafia operates. You have the choice to leave, so it's justified, right?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Who would establish said law and whose laws would be established in the case of disagreements about law and who would enforce said laws in the case of noncompliance???

Everybody would enforce the law, and disagreements would be handled through arbitration.

Here in a nutshell we have the contradiction between the anarchic dream and the real and arbitrary nature of mankind.
C&G relies on a nonexistent ability of men to exist together on a voluntary and peaceable basis.

How does the existence of government solve this problem? Has government created any kind of lasting peace? We've had nothing but thousands and thousands of years of violence, war, murder, slavery, rape, and genocide.

If government solves the problem of men being incapable of existing together on a voluntary and peaceable basis, how come we still have all these problems?

All government is a response to the nature of mankind ie. the propensity of men to murder and enslave each other.

If government is a response to men murdering and enslaving each other, why do we still have murder and slavery?

None of your arguments are supported by reality.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I read it, thanks. So why did you avoid answering my question?

Apparently not since you're still having difficulty understanding the differences between "voluntary" and "involuntary".

So how is this any difference from the way a government or Mafia operates. You have the choice to leave, so it's justified, right?

This question is almost too sophomoric to answer--but suffice it to say, that you're grotesquely over-simplifying things here and, once again, failing to distinguish between "voluntary" and "involuntary" interactions.

The justification/rationalization for government is based upon "the social contract". Now, before you start attacking that--implied contracts *are* recognized in common law and in statutory law. And if you don't agree with your responsibilities under the social contract, you *do* have the voluntary choice to opt out (leave) without penalty. Hence, the justification for government is based upon voluntary choice/consent.

The justification for the Mafia is most often because they provide a good/service that you can't get by any other means. Which would, again, be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual.

Involuntary interactions with the Mafia are based on violence or the threat of it. Pay them--or else. You can't leave without some type of violence being meted out against you.

Since that probably went over your head, here's a more simple analogy: comparing an apple to an orange and then trying to argue that they both look and taste the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

The justification/rationalization for government is based upon "the social contract". Now, before you start attacking that--implied contracts *are* recognized in common law and in statutory law.

Irrelevant, as contracts not voluntarily agreed to are illegitimate.

And if you don't agree with your responsibilities under the social contract, you *do* have the voluntary choice to opt out (leave) without penalty. Hence, the justification for government is based upon voluntary choice/consent.

A contract that offers you a choice, neither of which you'd choose voluntarily, is not legitimate. If I invade your home and offer you the choice to stay and die or leave and save your life, this wouldn't be a legitimate contract.

Sorry, point rejected.

The justification for the Mafia is most often because they provide a good/service that you can't get by any other means. Which would, again, be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual.

What service is that, exactly?

Involuntary interactions with the Mafia are based on violence or the threat of it. Pay them--or else. You can't leave without some type of violence being meted out against you.

False. Interactions with both the Mafia and government are the same. In both cases, you have the option to leave.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is too easy for me. Government apologists are completely incapable of explaining any meaningful differences between governments and Mafia crime syndicates. And why? Because there are no differences.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

This is too easy for me. Government apologists are completely incapable of explaining any meaningful differences between governments and Mafia crime syndicates. And why? Because there are no differences.

Sure, it's easy because you ignore facts, reason, and honest debate.

Anything is "easy" when you completely ignore any attempt at rational debate.

I can sit here and make the claim that Disney apologists are incapable of proving me wrong since you've yet to give a SINGLE argument to counter anything I'm saying.

So cool. We've established you're a Disney shill that's obsessed with Snow White and the Jonas brothers. Have fun with that.

[Minister_of_Information]

This is known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

None of your arguments are supported by reality.

Probably the most ironic post of the year since your argument/viewpoint is so completely unsupported by reality, it's honestly surprising anyone would advocate for it.

Reality is that humanity has had plenty examples of anarchy in the course of history...with current examples being Somalia and most of Afghanistan.

Even if 97% of people were committed to honesty and "the golden rule"--the 3% of humans who weren't would quickly dominate over the rest due to their willingness to not abide by the rules.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Maybe the government apologists can tell us more about this notion of a mythical "social contract".

[Minister_of_Information]

I didn't realize the Constitution was mythological.