[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But what is the “State” (er…polis) but an institution for festering bureaucratic inefficiency? I will go as far to say the State is nothing more than a notion of infinite regulation–which requires taxation to enforce. In fact, the only thing the State can do is regulate. I fail to see how regulation corrects human error.
[/quote]
Just to clear up my own terminology, polis is substantially different from “state.” State is larger. What we have now are states. The polis is naturally human. While the state is inefficient, and we ought to strive to improve its efficiency, it does do more than regulate. It also executes.
And executive authority is one of the most compelling reasons for the modern state’s existence. It is also inherently dangerous.
Interesting. That sounds a lot like portions of Europe after the fall of Rome. And what happens when your neighbor doesn’t follow the court’s ruling? What standards will the court use to judge?
[quote]
Under absolute libertarian ideals the free market can solve everything. [/quote]
I understand that. It is unrealistic.
[quote]
Humans have a self interest in survival (a biological imperative) which requires maximizing efficiency and specialization. [/quote]
Well, survival in what sense? The biological imperative is to reproduce. We don’t need efficiency for that. The simple act of survival or reproduction doesn’t adequately explain our desire to improve ourselves.
[quote]
Due to the natural law of diminishing returns (conservation of energy) this becomes even more apparent; especially as human populations become larger. The state does not provide any of those requirements–in fact, it is the antithesis of them.[/quote]
Except that it does provide for considerable efficiency given the vast number of people involved. And like it or not, we live in an era in which there are a lot of people involved in any particular state.
And what libertarians posit would require a re-founding on dramatically different principles than any prior. Until that problem can be solved, this is all just speculation.
Well I suffered through most of it. That is some boring shit, wow. Anyhow, the contigent that any role of the state that operatates in oppositon to the will of an individual with in the society makes it’s behavior intrinsicly evil because it is act against a persons will is an interesting philosophical concept.
The idea that taxation it purity is equivilent to armed robbery is another interesting conecpt. These are interesting ethical motifs, but how acting these thoughts out, i.e. everyman for himself, would probably be just chaotic. I confess I don’t know what his proposed solution is. In an ungoverned society, governance happens, just like shit happens.
People either rule or are ruled, that’s pretty basic. I’ll have think on it some more, it’s a good excuse to smoke a cigar and sit down with some sour mash.
The only flaw with the author’s thinking that I can point out is that he seem to equate individual thinking and behaviour the same as group thinking and behaviour and they are very different things.
Am I right in guessing that liberty in this case means, doing what you want, when you want, because you want, stopping only and the door step of another’s right to do the same? Am I to broad or to narrow?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
And what happens when your neighbor doesn’t follow the court’s ruling? [/quote]
He pays his debt or is removed by force from society and placed in a completely self-sufficient, free-market prison system until his debt is repaid by his own labor. (Holy smokes–we have a solution to the immigrant farm labor question.)
You can imagine a system where people are free to purchase “insurance” against such criminal behavior whereby the insurer becomes the agent of force to reclaim the debts incurred by said acts. The prisoner engages in an involuntary contract with the prison which guarantees his release upon his debt repayment–this contract is also enforced by the legal system.
The only question left is what to do about violent offenders and how to extract a just repayment to their victims. Since rehabilitation is a professional matter we can allow professionals in the free market deal with this also. Professionals can determine a parolees threat to society and thus be held responsible for their recidivism–our current system allows for no such reparations.
The courts will use standards of natural rights for the basis of legality. It is the only way to consistently enforce the rule of law. You can imagine in a libertarian society the number of criminals is reduced because the notion of criminality is fundamentally changed. Essentially, the only crimes are against a persons liberty which include life, limb, and property.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Am I right in guessing that liberty in this case means, doing what you want, when you want, because you want, stopping only and the door step of another’s right to do the same? Am I to broad or to narrow?
[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Am I right in guessing that liberty in this case means, doing what you want, when you want, because you want, stopping only and the door step of another’s right to do the same? Am I to broad or to narrow?
I would call that an accurate definition.[/quote]
Not a bad definition at all. I defined it on another thread as “the capacity to do whatever one pleases, without interference from authority, provided such activity does not infringe the capacity of another to do the same.”
The barometer by which I would measure the relative liberty of states is the level of interference they authorize, and the degree to which the people accept it.
As for Nephorm’s nautical analogy, I believe that every state may begin the voyage by trimming sails and plotting courses, but will inevitably end up aiming cannons at far shores, and banging drums to keep the slaves pulling at the oars.
DeToqueville said, in describing Americans, that they want a powerful state but they want to vote for it. We’ve gotten exactly what we deserve, which is justice.
Now as Pookie points out, corporations have done an ‘end run’ around this and are extremely powerful. In fact, I just watched a documentary about how defense contractors make sure that they are present in all 50 states (which means jobs). This ensures that money for defense contracts will usually be forthcoming.
I would say they the inherent logic in this system is well-entrenched and there’s little we can do. Voting does not change corporate America; it simply changes who gets the $$$$ in Washington. So, buy defense stocks — loot or be looted. When the system collapses, like the old Roman Empire, you might be rich enough to help in the rebuilding.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Well, survival in what sense? The biological imperative is to reproduce. We don’t need efficiency for that. The simple act of survival or reproduction doesn’t adequately explain our desire to improve ourselves.
[/quote]
There is only one sense to survival–species continuity. The biological imperative is to survive, PERIOD. All species have a biological “need” to adapt in order to survive. Adaption requires improved efficiency and specialization. Only those members of a species that fills these requirements will survive–reproduction is included in that contest.
Improvement is not a “desire” it is a direct result of improved efficiency and specialization. All species seek to gain more with less work–in fact, biological adaption requires it. The only way to do this is by biological improvement. Biology is a result of the laws of physics and economics. All organisms seek dominance in their environment–adaption is the only process that allows that.
Adaption requires the ability live freely making choices organically in an unfettered environment–i.e., unregulated. One solution does not fit all so why write a rule that limits options? Making one reliant on the government to fulfill basic needs is one way to ensure a weaker society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is only one sense to survival–species continuity. The biological imperative is to survive, PERIOD. All species have a biological “need” to adapt in order to survive. Adaption requires improved efficiency and specialization. Only those members of a species that fills these requirements will survive–reproduction is included in that contest.
[/quote]
We already have species continuity. If you want to speak about human beings in terms of biological imperatives, it seems silly to discuss “choice” in government at all. There is no biological need to adapt to static conditions. Adaptations that favor the ability to reproduce - to spread one’s DNA around more than competitors - are selected. But there is no necessary reason for this to happen in static environments.
It seems like you want to pick and choose when human beings are animals and when they are rational beings. They’re rational when dealing with a libertarian free market, but they’re biologically determined when you need them to strive for survival. They’re rational when dealing with contractors to provide, say, national defense - but irrational when dealing with large corporations in our current system. They’re rational when executing judgments against people who have violated the few laws that are allowed, but in the current system the ambitious would use that power to gain advantage.
No, it doesn’t. There is nothing inherently progressive about evolution.
Now you’re being clever about the definition of adaptation. I can, as an individual, adapt to gain dominance over another person. Or the species can adapt to gain advantage over competing species. But you’re sliding back and forth between biological adaptation and individual adaptation, which is an already adapted quality.
[quote]
Adaption requires the ability live freely making choices organically in an unfettered environment–i.e., unregulated. One solution does not fit all so why write a rule that limits options? Making one reliant on the government to fulfill basic needs is one way to ensure a weaker society.[/quote]
Do bees live “freely making choices organically in an unfettered environment?” Do ants? Do dogs, or cats? Or do they have social and biological structure that impose constraints on their wills, and ties them to a society that does not necessarily cater to their individual whims? The libertarian argument assumes too much. First you have to prove that human beings are capable of fending for themselves without regulation. And when they are competing with other groups who have adapted to have the organization and efficiency that comes with a regime, will they survive?
While this thread makes for some interesting reading, I can’t help but recall that only a few months ago, Lifticus was rejecting “economic competitive man” in his defense of communism and his categorical rejection of capitalism not that long ago.
Now Lifticus has swung to the other polar extreme and is essentially a cipher for anarchist-libertarian political economy. Lifticus now supports unfettered unmodified capitalism in its most unregulated state plus all the assumptions about human behavior the model requires.
In the first anti-capitalist model, the slightest form of exploitation for personal advantage was a crime against natural rights - in the second pro-capitalist model, any intervention into exercise of a freedom that thwarts personal advantage is a crime against natural rights.
A strange and breakneck transition, with no stops at points in the race from one radical pole or the other.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am starting to understand this more and more from observation of both the present and past–which begs the question: is mankind capable of defying these “natural” tendencies?
I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum, but it does not “beg the question.” It raises or prompts the question. To beg the question is a logical fallacy. [/quote]
Hey fuck it, I’ll be that guy. People sound like fucking dimwits when they follow “begs the question” with a question. STOP DOING IT, ASSHOLES.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
We already have species continuity. If you want to speak about human beings in terms of biological imperatives, it seems silly to discuss “choice” in government at all. There is no biological need to adapt to static conditions. Adaptations that favor the ability to reproduce - to spread one’s DNA around more than competitors - are selected. But there is no necessary reason for this to happen in static environments.
[/quote]
What I mean by “choice” is that all organisms make them whether one wants to define it as “rational” or instinctual. There is no distinction. By nature all organism (knowingly or not) seek economy of nature–maximizing efficiency and specialization. This is achieved first biologically and then inorganically-- with technology, for example (as a product of adaption).
Again, there is no distinction between rational or instinctual choice. Humans are animals–our perceived rationality is a product of evolution. (In fact, it is believed that humans only became rational creatures because we “learned” to walk up-right thus becoming more energy efficient in our mobility which allowed more energy to be spent on brain activity and also allowed females to give birth to babies with more fully developed brains.)
The laws of physics require it. One cannot do more work than the amount of energy one has stored but it is an individual quality in organisms that determines how biologically efficient they are with respect to the amount of stored energy. Life only adapts because organisms become more efficient at a certain functions over other functions (specialization). It is always progressive. This is a biological law–though no one may “know” it yet.
(There are some pretty good studies on protein folding that I can reference for you–if you are interested–that talks precisely about this.)
Inter and intra-species domination are the same thing. Competition ensures that only the fittest survive–whether it is an individual in the species or a species as a whole. Dominant species and individuals reproduce and are able to thrive–plain and simple.
Arguing about the whim of other species or individuals is pointless because we don’t know how or why one may behave the way one does outside the context of the laws of physics and economics. All organisms seek to maximize their benefit with the least amount of energy expenditure–e.g., even elementary particles take a path of least resistance. (I’ll leave quantum tunneling out of that argument because it can be explained statistically).
Libertarianism, though not perfect, is the most efficient way to bring this about within the ideals of a social framework. It is the only philosophical frameworks that allows for absolute coherence between physics and economics.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
While this thread makes for some interesting reading, I can’t help but recall that only a few months ago, Lifticus was rejecting “economic competitive man” in his defense of communism and his categorical rejection of capitalism not that long ago.
[/quote]
I was not rejecting competition I just happen to think that capitalism is flawed within the framework of fascism–which is what we live in currently. Fascism promotes special interest thru market manipulation with the help of gov’t regulation–thus it is anti-Free market. I have always believed in a free, unfettered market for the best and most fair productivity. Communism (communalism) fits within that framework as long as it stays out of the hands of the state.
Actually, the most efficient model of government is totalitarianism, yet it is the least fair. Libertarianism is the most fair and most efficient given the nature of all organisms. I believe natural selection will correct the flaws of the “nanny state” if it is allowed to take its course.
[quote]
In the first anti-capitalist model, the slightest form of exploitation for personal advantage was a crime against natural rights [/quote]
In a fascist government there is no free trade and thus capitalism cannot work.
No–you have it wrong. It is only a crime against natural rights when one’s actions are unfairly thwarted–for example, when I am told I cannot do something that does not interfere with an other’s liberty.
I have been consistent in my beliefs. I have been an atheist and an anarchist for the better part of my life–it is just recently that I have come to believe that physics, economics, psychology, sociology, and biology must be reconciled wholly within the entire framework of human behavior in order for it to be consistent as a law of nature.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Libertarianism, though not perfect, is the most efficient way to bring this about within the ideals of a social framework. It is the only philosophical frameworks that allows for absolute coherence between physics and economics.[/quote]
You’re still trying to argue about it both ways. Obviously you don’t really believe your theory about being maximally efficient; otherwise, you would stop arguing about this (wasting energy) and you would allow the “laws of physics” to force us into compliance.
Elementary particles don’t choose to take a path of least resistance. They don’t calculate how to do so. Human beings are capable of calculating that one thing is worth more than another, and that a certain goal is or isn’t worth pursuing. There is no single destination for human beings, except, perhaps, happiness. And that is not something that is described by physics.
Btw - brushing aside years of political debate by saying “the laws of physics and economics say so” really doesn’t cut it. If you want to make that kind of argument, then you’ll have to be subjected to the same kind of rigor that physical scientists are subjected to. That is, you’ll have to explain all the complex feedback loops between individual and environment, show causal relationships between the two, and give a falsifiable account of how the brain and the psyche work (good luck). You’ll have to show that the resultant model is superior to the current ways of doing things, also in a falsifiable way.
The fact is that the laws of physics or economics are not breakable. If they were, they would not be laws. Human behavior is not adequately described by fixed, physical laws. Why do human beings sit in front of the TV and consume fast food instead of working? Working is a more efficient way to “survive” or “dominate” than not working. Yet people opt to apparently violate the laws of physics every single day.
Libertarianism ignores culture, history, resources, the cost of change; you can’t just wave those away as if they don’t exist. You also can’t ignore the fact that societies separated by substantial distances seem to spontaneously set up some sort of government. You can’t ignore the fact that the nations who have created most - who have adapted the most, to use your terminology - also happen to have particular types of governments. What explanation can you give to explain why we have not spontaneously created pure libertarianism up to this point?
If you want to argue libertarianism on ideological grounds, fine. But don’t try to argue it based on physical laws. You don’t have the proof to do so, nor does anyone else.
I like the author’s contention that the state is an inherently evil institution by nature. It then seems that a paradox is in place, we need governance, but it is an evil thing that we need. So the best possible government is none at all, but that isn’t very realistic. Every man for himself really doesn’t work either, even though it’s fair. Sufficed to say that with in a group, any group, a form of leadership will eventually come in to being. So it is better to have a government that we have some say so in than one where we do not.
So with our paradox, I think Thomas Jefferson summed it up best when he said “That government is best which governs the least�?�” I know others said it to but bottom line, the best possible form of government is one that does the bare minimum to govern and allow the people with in it to be free to do what they want with in the constraints provided.
The size and rate at which our government has grown in the last 20 years is just nauseating. We need to shrink it and get it the fuck out of our lives. Government often times isn’t the answer, it’s the problem.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Humans are animals–our perceived rationality is a product of evolution. (In fact, it is believed that humans only became rational creatures because we “learned” to walk up-right thus becoming more energy efficient in our mobility which allowed more energy to be spent on brain activity and also allowed females to give birth to babies with more fully developed brains.)
[/quote]
I read some theory that stated eating meat brought on the development of the brain. Walking upright has nothing to do with it.
So with our paradox, I think Thomas Jefferson summed it up best when he said “That government is best which governs the least�?�” I know others said it to but bottom line, the best possible form of government is one that does the bare minimum to govern and allow the people with in it to be free to do what they want with in the constraints provided.
The size and rate at which our government has grown in the last 20 years is just nauseating. We need to shrink it and get it the fuck out of our lives. Government often times isn’t the answer, it’s the problem.
[/quote]
So with our paradox, I think Thomas Jefferson summed it up best when he said “That government is best which governs the least�?�” I know others said it to but bottom line, the best possible form of government is one that does the bare minimum to govern and allow the people with in it to be free to do what they want with in the constraints provided.
The size and rate at which our government has grown in the last 20 years is just nauseating. We need to shrink it and get it the fuck out of our lives. Government often times isn’t the answer, it’s the problem.
Did you know you were a republican?[/quote]
So you resort to name calling do you!! I subscribe to no political party, none are good enough for me. Besides, in the last 20 years of the growth of the federal government, the last 6 has seen more growth of the federal government than the previous 14. If I am not mistaken the last six years have been primarily republican controled.
I do not think republicans are very interested in small government. Oh, they pay the notion the proper lip service, but actions speak louder than words and their actions grew the government and forced it’s encroachment in to our lives more than I have ever experienced previously.
I do, in the end, concider the republicans to traditionally be the lesser of two evils. But I don’t think they are the answer either, they are just less bad than the democrats.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Elementary particles don’t choose to take a path of least resistance. They don’t calculate how to do so. [/quote]
Not in a rational sense…“nature” chooses it for them. How do you know that the choices you make are your own?
This is nonsense…value is always subjective which is the biggest argument for a free market. Value is not necessarily a rational measure. What one is willing to pay for a particular service may not be what another is willing to pay–i.e., what we value is different.
The “destination” is inconsequential to the facts of nature. We could argue the same with purpose–physics doesn’t seek to answer questions of human behavior…it is only concerned with the “behavior” of nature in general. If the laws of physics are true for one entity then they are necessarily true for all entities. Nature doesn’t care about what humans think of purpose. It only acts in accordance with it’s laws-- and by extension all organisms are forced to act in accordance with them.
We can ignore all questions of purpose because it is a valuation and all valuation is subjective–read above.
Quite true! but if we are to take the laws of physics, et al, as universally true then they must all act in accordance with each other. In physics we call it a grand unified theory. I am applying that same logic to the argument of universal organic behavior and interaction.
[quote]
The fact is that the laws of physics or economics are not breakable. If they were, they would not be laws.[/quote]
Precisely why they must all act in accordance with each other or not be true.
It is because humans living in our current society do not have to “forage” that they can watch TV–why they do…? (again we can disregard questions of value) I am not interested in that. Individual behaviors is not what I am trying to explain–I think in more general terms. We will call it “A General Grand Unified Theory for Organic Behavior”.
Libertarianism is just an ideal. It does not seek perfection–it cannot attain that because it cannot be defined except on an individual level. It simply sets out the ideals that must be followed in order to maximize efficiency of economy via a recognition of “natural rights”.
Because it is just an ideal…like democracy or Christianity. There is still an element of uncertainty in any system–for example, there is an element in human behavior that seeks a disproportionate amount of power.
“Pureness” is also a valuation that cannot be made outside your own individuality. There is no pure reason or logic. There is no pure democracy or Christianity, etc. Discreteness, outside the subatomic world, is merely a perception that does not exist–and even then, you wouldn’t know it if you were looking at it in the subatomic world.
[quote]
If you want to argue libertarianism on ideological grounds, fine. But don’t try to argue it based on physical laws. You don’t have the proof to do so, nor does anyone else.[/quote]
I don’t need proof to conjecture about theory…imagine if Einstein (not comparing myself to him) were told to stop wasting his time on the the photoelectric effect. Theory is the foundation of all academic pursuit–you can criticize it as you will.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
While this thread makes for some interesting reading, I can’t help but recall that only a few months ago, Lifticus was rejecting “economic competitive man” in his defense of communism and his categorical rejection of capitalism not that long ago.
I was not rejecting competition I just happen to think that capitalism is flawed within the framework of fascism–which is what we live in currently. Fascism promotes special interest thru market manipulation with the help of gov’t regulation–thus it is anti-Free market. I have always believed in a free, unfettered market for the best and most fair productivity. Communism (communalism) fits within that framework as long as it stays out of the hands of the state.
[/quote]
Communism still doesn’t work. It ignores the basic pricipals of human behaviour that almost all environmentaly controled aspects of human behaviour function on the pricipals of Opperant Conditioning. Behaviour and reward go hand and hand. Very few get stisfaction by working really hard and seeing everybody else benefit. Most people are just not that altruistic by nature. Altruism is a self dicipline, no real altruism actually exisits. Humans can will themselves to wait for reward, but not forever. Reward must come or behaviour will cease, it is really that simple.
Communistic theory is flawed in that it only takes into account sociological pricipals and ignores psychological pricipals of the individual. Your sociological pricipals must take into account the individual or your principals are no good. It’s just like a football coach saying, “No matter what the play we’ll kick a hundred yard field goal at every 4rth down.” A fine theory if your kicker could do it, but none of them can. So it doesn’t work.
Also, you just aren’t going to have a communist style economy with out the state running it, I cannot envision a context where that would work. Ultiamtley, if you aren’t going to reward an individual for a desired behaviour, which in this case is work, your going to have to force them to work. You pretty much need a tyranical oppresive regime to get that kind of clout.
I understand your frusteration with capitolism. It isn’t perfect, some people get unjustly left out and it seems to cater to the greedy. But until somebody comes up with a functional economic motif that is neither capitolistic or communistic in nature; I’ll listen.