Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Hypothetically, though: if people were happy paying a bit of extra money each year to contribute to the happiness of others, and didn't complain about it like many of us do now (even me), would it really be so bad if certain people sacrifice a bit more for the happiness of others?

Who gets to decide which version of happiness needs sacrificing to obtain, and who needs to do the sacrificing? If we are all sacrificing, then what is the point of sacrificing? We would be equally well off not shifting property around pointlessly. Edit: Actually the needless shifting would use up resources pointlessly in transportation, therefore making us worse off than had nothing been done.

I realize I'm speaking of a utopian ideal; but if welfare was regulated so as to procure the minimal amount of money from people (so minimal, in fact, as to be nearly negligible and not a source of discomfort or unhappiness), and they were still happy giving a bit extra, I don't see a huge problem with that system.

Other than the fact it would be impossibly utopian, "welfare" still requires some guy with a gun standing around acting as an illegitimate arbiter.

Charity requires no state beaurocracy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein never lets up. I think he should change his name to Advocatus Diaboli.

I enjoy the chase.

Who gets to decide which version of happiness needs sacrificing to obtain, and who needs to do the sacrificing? If we are all sacrificing, then what is the point of sacrificing? We would be equally well off not shifting property around pointlessly. Edit: Actually the needless shifting would use up resources pointlessly in transportation, therefore making us worse off than had nothing been done.

Who gets to decide that the version of happiness purportedly attained by your theory is the best one?

Other than the fact it would be impossibly utopian, "welfare" still requires some guy with a gun standing around acting as an illegitimate arbiter.

Charity requires no state beaurocracy.

Regardless of some illegitimate arbiter (whose illegitimacy is in question if he/she has been elected into the position), the fact remains that people can still be happy.

 

[Dak]

Who gets to decide that the version of happiness purportedly attained by your theory is the best one?

The individual makes his/her own. Kind of the point.

Regardless of some illegitimate arbiter (whose illegitimacy is in question if he/she has been elected into the position), the fact remains that people can still be happy.

I'd say that it would be very easy to poll out that the overwhelming majority of people dislike their government and/or neighboring governments. Yet still think it is a necessity. Cognitive dissonance would explain why so many people are just unhappy.

You might be able to influence the forming of a government that is tailored to your personal utopian ideals. It won't last. In fact, you would be lucky if it out lasted you. The very elements that you would seek to subjugate, would subvert the system and turn it into their own personal tool, and eventually turn it on you/ your kind. Unless, of course, the whole process was derailed by an invader not happy with your foreign policy.

This is history, and most have yet to learn from it.

That's nice, but still pretty vague. You're still evading the points I made. It's pretty simple: I asked how the cases you described don't involve the use of force, and you still haven't addressed that. How does what you're saying here address my point?

edit: Let's suppose I have supreme authority over myself. How does that make physical defense of myself against an attacker non-coercive towards my attacker?

I clarified later (although not in response to you) that while it is force, it is legitimate use. While acting in self defense, you are still acting under coercion from your attacker.

 

[Einherjar86]

The individual makes his/her own. Kind of the point.

But they don't get to choose; are you not seeing this? Your proposed plan would force a particular mode of existence upon them.

I'd say that it would be very easy to poll out that the overwhelming majority of people dislike their government and/or neighboring governments. Yet still think it is a necessity.

Just because they're unhappy with a particular form doesn't mean the concept in general is flawed.

You might be able to influence the forming of a government that is tailored to your personal utopian ideals. It won't last. In fact, you would be lucky if it out lasted you. The very elements that you would seek to subjugate, would subvert the system and turn it into their own personal tool, and eventually turn it on you/ your kind. Unless, of course, the whole process was derailed by an invader not happy with your foreign policy.

This is history, and most have yet to learn from it.

And neither will your proposed plan of established anarchy last. This is history as well.

What I want to ask is why individual sovereignty and individual liberty are universally/objectively recognizable as the highest human values, and thus logic should (if deployed correctly) seek to support those values. Why do those earn the status of highest moral value?

 

[Dak]

But they don't get to choose; are you not seeing this? Your proposed plan would force a particular mode of existence upon them.

Because government is happiness?

Edit: I think you are confusing a rejection of coercive beaurocracy with a rejection consensual organization as well.

Just because they're unhappy with a particular form doesn't mean the concept in general is flawed.

And neither will your proposed plan of established anarchy last. This is history as well.

What I want to ask is why individual sovereignty and individual liberty are universally/objectively recognizable as the highest human values, and thus logic should (if deployed correctly) seek to support those values. Why do those earn the status of highest moral value?

You never answered my question of authority. That is really the key.

As I stated before, religion (god) was the claim to authority over humans. Cool trick. We are only briefly removed from this divine claim tactic in the broad scheme of history. Government is rooted in false claims.

Currently we are under a much more obfuscated regime. One that seeks to establish a totalitarian, one world government/economic system, absent checks and balances, which sucks all profits of production to the top. To accomplish this, all dissent must be eradicated. The "cleansing" is already underway.

My prediction:
More people are about to die in this world in the next 10-20 years than many previous centuries combined. Thanks to "government".

Edit #2: It took being in the thug arm of this regime to recognize it for what it was. I am more blessed/lucky/etc. than anything to see through the propaganda the US Military is bombarded with. I seek to leave the US ASAP not only because of disagreement with the system, but because the average US citizen has reached the end of their usefulness, and the slave masters are ready to eradicate the "useless eaters".

 

[Einherjar86]

You never answered my question of authority. That is really the key.

I don't remember the question.

As I stated before, religion (god) was the claim to authority over humans. Cool trick. We are only briefly removed from this divine claim tactic in the broad scheme of history. Government is rooted in false claims.

Currently we are under a much more obfuscated regime. One that seeks to establish a totalitarian, one world government/economic system, absent checks and balances, which sucks all profits of production to the top. To accomplish this, all dissent must be eradicated. The "cleansing" is already underway.

I agree with that completely. What I don't believe is that educated and established anarchy is the answer, nor can it ever be a viable answer, because human beings will always tend toward bureaucracy, social hierarchy, and politics. If anarchy emerges as a way of life, it will only be as a stepping stone toward another form of organized central government. Even people educated to think that the form of government they served under only operated successfully through threat of coercion won't necessarily be convinced that a system created by them and their peers will be just as bad.

Furthermore, I don't agree with you that force used without physical provocation is illegitimate, whereas force used in retaliation is. Provocation can't always be measured. What right do you have to say that a person who acted in force first acted illegitimately? If someone acts out in force, without physical provocation, it might be because they feel they were given the raw end of a deal, or were unfairly treated during an exchange. This might be because the person they are dealing with possesses more items of value (or just a great quantity of what is considered valuable). If "logic" favors the wealthier person because he didn't act out, but was acted against (physically), all I see here are the beginnings of new power structures and social hierarchies emerging.

 

[Dak]

I don't remember the question.

Where is the source of authority over the individual?

I agree with that completely. What I don't believe is that educated and established anarchy is the answer, nor can it ever be a viable answer, because human beings will always tend toward bureaucracy, social hierarchy, and politics. If anarchy emerges as a way of life, it will only be as a stepping stone toward another form of organized central government. Even people educated to think that the form of government they served under only operated successfully through threat of coercion won't necessarily be convinced that a system created by them and their peers will be just as bad.

You can have a consensual hierarchy. Businesses are essentually consensual hierarchy. By seeking employment with a business you accept the hierarchy. Co-ops also fall under this. And so on. Where the power problem explodes is when hierarchy is given "domain", and the power over the money. Any socially controlling body can be severely restricted by refusing it access to any capital or control thereof.

Of course, over time, it will seek to gain control of exactly those things. Usually pulling up some anomalous event as to why people need to sacrifice liberty for security. Might even call it the Patriot Act or something. Might have even paid off the participants to create the "crisis". And on it goes.

The problem is not government, or lack thereof, so much as it is people. The same people that seek to profit at the expense of their fellow man, will merely move right into government. Your average person has no interest in that power.

You could have a "benevolent dictatorship", but history shows how well this goes over the long term, as well as it shows how well democracy goes. This doesn't even need go into the atrocities committed against the neighbors of such regimes.

Furthermore, I don't agree with you that force used without physical provocation is illegitimate, whereas force used in retaliation is. Provocation can't always be measured. What right do you have to say that a person who acted in force first acted illegitimately? If someone acts out in force, without physical provocation, it might be because they feel they were given the raw end of a deal, or were unfairly treated during an exchange. This might be because the person they are dealing with possesses more items of value (or just a great quantity of what is considered valuable). If "logic" favors the wealthier person because he didn't act out, but was acted against (physically), all I see here are the beginnings of new power structures and social hierarchies emerging.

"Raw end of the deal"? "Possess greater quantities of value"? My response is "And?"

Jealousy is not a legitimate reason for the use of force, nor is realization of personal shortfalls in judgement in business dealings.

 

[Einherjar86]

Where is the source of authority over the individual?

If you're implying that individuals have authority over themselves, I would agree; but this doesn't exclude the possibility of consensual political organization.

You can have a consensual hierarchy. Businesses are essentually consensual hierarchy. By seeking employment with a business you accept the hierarchy. Co-ops also fall under this. And so on. Where the power problem explodes is when hierarchy is given "domain", and the power over the money. Any socially controlling body can be severely restricted by refusing it access to any capital or control thereof.

Must all statist regimes necessarily control the money?

Of course, over time, it will seek to gain control of exactly those things. Usually pulling up some anomalous event as to why people need to sacrifice liberty for security. Might even call it the Patriot Act or something. Might have even paid off the participants to create the "crisis". And on it goes.

The problem is not government, or lack thereof, so much as it is people. The same people that seek to profit at the expense of their fellow man, will merely move right into government. Your average person has no interest in that power.

I wouldn't be so sure.

"Raw end of the deal"? "Possess greater quantities of value"? My response is "And?"

Jealousy is not a legitimate reason for the use of force, nor is realization of personal shortfalls in judgement in business dealings.

How can you jump to the conclusion that it's jealousy? As far as I can tell, you believe that if there is a lack of physical provocation, a person has no right to act physically in defense of his or her own survival. You jump to the conclusion that, since a person acted first, he or she must be guilty. I disagree and think that argument is flawed.

 

[Dak]

If you're implying that individuals have authority over themselves, I would agree; but this doesn't exclude the possibility of consensual political organization.

Of course it doesn't. Consensual is the opposite of coercive.

Must all statist regimes necessarily control the money?

Controlling the land (resources), and the means of exchange, is crucial to control. So yes, a statist regime will.

I wouldn't be so sure.

History says otherwise.

How can you jump to the conclusion that it's jealousy? As far as I can tell, you believe that if there is a lack of physical provocation, a person has no right to act physically in defense of his or her own survival. You jump to the conclusion that, since a person acted first, he or she must be guilty. I disagree and think that argument is flawed.

Very well, explain how the physical aggressor in your situation was not driven by either of my assertions.

 

[Einherjar86]

Controlling the land (resources), and the means of exchange, is crucial to control. So yes, a statist regime will.

A central state doesn't necessarily need to control the means of exchange and resources in order to provide a service. So I don't understand where you're coming from.

History says otherwise.

History says that people are generally not concerned with power?

Very well, explain how the physical aggressor in your situation was not driven by either of my assertions.

I already have. A person can be driven purely by the drive for survival. Jealousy and irrationality have absolutely nothing to do with it. If one man possesses a fertile plot of land, and refuses to barter reasonably with the man a few miles away whose land isn't producing any crops, he may very well force that man to take action.

 

[Dak]

A central state doesn't necessarily need to control the means of exchange and resources in order to provide a service. So I don't understand where you're coming from.

A consensual organization does not, but a coercive one has to.

History says that people are generally not concerned with power?

Some are and some aren't. Not what I was referring to though.

I already have. A person can be driven purely by the drive for survival. Jealousy and irrationality have absolutely nothing to do with it. If one man possesses a fertile plot of land, and refuses to barter reasonably with the man a few miles away whose land isn't producing any crops, he may very well force that man to take action.

There are many more factors to take into account. Survival isn't automatically a legitimate reason.

 

[CF87]

Batshit theory does not mean nothin' when you're a man.

 

[Einherjar86]

Some are and some aren't. Not what I was referring to though.

Well, that's what my quote you were referring to was talking about. It all goes back to whether or not people are concerned with power; I think they are.

There are many more factors to take into account. Survival isn't automatically a legitimate reason.

Very true; but your theory doesn't take all of them into account.

I don't think we're going to come to a conclusion, and I don't expect either of us to be convinced by the other, which is fine. You can have the last word as response to my statements above. Beyond that, I'm not going to continue.

 

[Dak]

You don't mind stopping the discussion here because your side has the bigger/most guns.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's no good way to back out of an argument. It was honestly just taking up too much of my spare time.

But at any rate, it gave me some things to think about.

 

[Dak]

There's no good way to back out of an argument. It was honestly just taking up too much of my spare time.

But at any rate, it gave me some things to think about.

Ain't it the truth.

I like debates because it either exposes holes in arguments to be mended, or reveals untruths.

 

[Dak]

MSNBC Distorts poll result showing to hide Ron Paul landslide

No conspiracy to see here.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

They've been trying to sweep Paul under the rug for years. I personally don't think he would make a good president, but that has nothing to do with his policies.

 

[Dak]

They've been trying to sweep Paul under the rug for years. I personally don't think he would make a good president, but that has nothing to do with his policies.

I don't think he will be able to do anymore than undo all the tyrannical EO's and pull our troops out of all the undeclared wars. That alone will be enough. I do expect him to be assassinated by "cardiac arrest" , etc. though if he does somehow make it through the rigged game.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Rigged is the key word. He won't get nominated, no matter how popular he is.