or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bloody Hell Romney: Show Some Patriotism During This Awful Crisis!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bloody Hell Romney: Show Some Patriotism During This Awful Crisis! - Page 3

post #81 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, I didn't miss the point at all.

 

Apparently you did.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - the blog made that point, but you yourself asked the question should we ban or limit free speech because of these events. I assumed that was a rhetorical question and that you were making the argument that we shouldn't, and so I was making the point that no one is arguing that we should. Except the Muslim protestors of course, but they don't have a say in this.

 

:rolleyes:

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #82 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I would not want to be a US Citizen living in an Islamic country if that were to happen though. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to live in one anyway.

 

Me neither, an Islamic country is the last place that I would ever want to live in or be in. I'd rather be in hell, if such a place exists. I would advise all Americans and others who value their lives who happen to be in Islamic countries to simply leave if such a film were ever to be made.

 

Even if a million people were to die from protests surrounding such a film, then I say, so be it, it would totally be worth it. It needs to be done, and the sooner those people and their primitive views are confronted, the better.

post #83 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, I didn't miss the point at all.

 

Apparently you did.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - the blog made that point, but you yourself asked the question should we ban or limit free speech because of these events. I assumed that was a rhetorical question and that you were making the argument that we shouldn't, and so I was making the point that no one is arguing that we should. Except the Muslim protestors of course, but they don't have a say in this.

 

:rolleyes:

 

I have no idea what you are trying to convey with that response. If I am missing your point then please feel free to explain.

post #84 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If I am missing your point then please feel free to explain.

 

I did.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #85 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If I am missing your point then please feel free to explain.

 

I did.

 

You wrote something about what the blog was trying to say about climate change regulation, but your original post, and this thread, were about freedom of expression, which is what I was responding to. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
 

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

 

So - if you were actually trying to change the subject to climate change then yes, I missed the point. Otherwise no, I was on topic and my response stands.

post #86 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You wrote something about what the blog was trying to say about climate change regulation, but your original post, and this thread, were about freedom of expression, which is what I was responding to. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

 

So - if you were actually trying to change the subject to climate change then yes, I missed the point. Otherwise no, I was on topic and my response stands.

 

Wow. From your previous posts I expected a better ability at abstract thought from you. Apparently I was wrong.

 

No I wasn't trying to change the subject to climate change.

 

If you're so inclined, try re-reading and see if you can grasp the larger point. I will try to explain yet again:

 

Quote:
No one is calling for limitations on this freedom even though it clearly has had some large and serious negative externalities (i.e., "social costs"). Yet many of the same people (typically leftists) who defend the freedom of expression no matter what are the first to advocate for the suppression of other freedoms because they create some kind of negative externality (i.e., "social costs") and argue that the government must limit some particular freedom because of these "social costs."

 

So even in a terrible situation like this, no one is calling for limitations on this freedom. But some will cause for limitations on other freedoms because they perceive the "social costs" or consequences to be too negative.

 

Got it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You wrote something about what the blog was trying to say about climate change regulation, but your original post, and this thread, were about freedom of expression, which is what I was responding to. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

 

So - if you were actually trying to change the subject to climate change then yes, I missed the point. Otherwise no, I was on topic and my response stands.

 

Wow. From your previous posts I expected a better ability at abstract thought from you. Apparently I was wrong.

 

No I wasn't trying to change the subject to climate change.

 

If you're so inclined, try re-reading and see if you can grasp the larger point. I will try to explain yet again:

 

Quote:
No one is calling for limitations on this freedom even though it clearly has had some large and serious negative externalities (i.e., "social costs"). Yet many of the same people (typically leftists) who defend the freedom of expression no matter what are the first to advocate for the suppression of other freedoms because they create some kind of negative externality (i.e., "social costs") and argue that the government must limit some particular freedom because of these "social costs."

 

So even in a terrible situation like this, no one is calling for limitations on this freedom. But some will cause for limitations on other freedoms because they perceive the "social costs" or consequences to be too negative.

 

Got it?

 

No need to get snippy; you may think that what you intended to say was obvious from what you said, but it was not, to me at least. If I now understand your point then it was pretty convoluted.

 

So to try to address it (if I've finally got it...), is not the reason for the difference that, (as I said earlier even though addressing a different point) not all freedoms are equal in status. Freedom of speech is granted by the constitution, and hopefully will never be taken away for any reason. On the other hand, freedom to release chemicals into the atmosphere is not enshrined in that way. It may be unregulated, but if it ends up being determined to be harmful, it may begin to be regulated. We may disagree on how much regulation of this kind should be imposed by government, but calling for such regulation is very different to calling for restriction of a constitutional right.

 

Did I get there in the end or am I still at the wrong tree?

post #88 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So to try to address it (if I've finally got it...), is not the reason for the difference that, (as I said earlier even though addressing a different point) not all freedoms are equal in status.

 

Interesting.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Freedom of speech is granted by the constitution

 

You really think this freedom is granted by the constitution?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

On the other hand, freedom to release chemicals into the atmosphere is not enshrined in that way. It may be unregulated, but if it ends up being determined to be harmful, it may begin to be regulated.

 

There you go. You've proven my point! Thanks! lol.gif

 

One freedom: OK to be restricted because of negative externalities.

Other freedom: Not OK to be restricted despite negative externalities.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did I get there in the end or am I still at the wrong tree?

 

I think you got it, though still too focused on climate change.


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/13/12 at 3:02pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No need to get snippy; you may think that what you intended to say was obvious from what you said, but it was not, to me at least. If I now understand your point then it was pretty convoluted.

 

You may think it was convoluted but it was not, to me at least. Interestingly, you now understand the point even though I used basically the same explanation.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So to try to address it (if I've finally got it...), is not the reason for the difference that, (as I said earlier even though addressing a different point) not all freedoms are equal in status.

 

Interesting.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Freedom of speech is granted by the constitution

 

You really think this freedom is granted by the constitution?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

On the other hand, freedom to release chemicals into the atmosphere is not enshrined in that way. It may be unregulated, but if it ends up being determined to be harmful, it may begin to be regulated.

 

There you go. You've proven my point! Thanks! lol.gif

 

One freedom: OK to be restricted because of negative externalities.

Other freedom: Not OK to be restricted despite negative externalities.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did I get there in the end or am I still at the wrong tree?

 

I think you got it, though still too focused on climate change.

 

I understand that you thought it was clear - but then it was your idea and you wrote it, so not surprising. It just wasn't clear to me at all. Thanks for explaining though.

 

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, so I guess yes - I think it is reasonable to say that it is granted by the constitution. Do you disagree? As for proving your point, I wasn't disputing your point (that there are calls to restrict "other freedoms"). I was arguing that those "other freedoms" are not equivalent to freedom of speech in that they are not protected by the constitution, and so calling for those to be regulated is not equivalent to calling for a restriction on freedom of speech.

 

I was not focusing on climate change - just using it as an example from the blog.

post #90 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, so I guess yes - I think it is reasonable to say that it is granted by the constitution. Do you disagree?

 

I do disagree.

 

I don't believe this right is a right that is granted by governments or constitutions but is one we have naturally. The constitution merely acknowledges it and claims that the governments of the U.S. will protect and guarantee it.

 

There's an important difference here.

 

Governments don't grant rights (at least negative rights). They can either acknowledge them, protect them or restrict them. Unfortunately, far too often, they do the first (paying lip service), fail to do the second and frequently do the last.
 

There are rights you have regardless of what the state says.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I was arguing that those "other freedoms" are not equivalent to freedom of speech in that they are not protected by the constitution, and so calling for those to be regulated is not equivalent to calling for a restriction on freedom of speech.

 

Not the same merely because one has been enumerated but certain others have not? What then about the 9th amendment?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #91 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, so I guess yes - I think it is reasonable to say that it is granted by the constitution. Do you disagree?

 

I do disagree.

 

I don't believe this right is a right that is granted by governments or constitutions but is one we have naturally. The constitution merely acknowledges it and claims that the governments of the U.S. will protect and guarantee it.

 

There's an important difference here.

 

Governments don't grant rights (at least negative rights). They can either acknowledge them, protect them or restrict them. Unfortunately, far too often, they do the first (paying lip service), fail to do the second and frequently do the last.
 

There are rights you have regardless of what the state says.

 

Hey pipe down there buddy, next you'll be declaring A is A and that you are the reason and the sanction.

 

;-)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Hey pipe down there buddy, next you'll be declaring A is A and that you are the reason and the sanction.

 

;-)

 

"I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction."

 

Still one of my favorite books.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #93 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, so I guess yes - I think it is reasonable to say that it is granted by the constitution. Do you disagree?

 

I do disagree.

 

I don't believe this right is a right that is granted by governments or constitutions but is one we have naturally. The constitution merely acknowledges it and claims that the governments of the U.S. will protect and guarantee it.

 

There's an important difference here.

 

Governments don't grant rights (at least negative rights). They can either acknowledge them, protect them or restrict them. Unfortunately, far too often, they do the first (paying lip service), fail to do the second and frequently do the last.
 

There are rights you have regardless of what the state says.

 

Oh fair enough - I agree that it should be a natural right, but clearly it isn't everywhere. Guaranteed by the constitution would be a better way to phrase it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I was arguing that those "other freedoms" are not equivalent to freedom of speech in that they are not protected by the constitution, and so calling for those to be regulated is not equivalent to calling for a restriction on freedom of speech.

 

Not the same merely because one has been enumerated but certain others have not? What then about the 9th amendment?

 

Not exactly. All that the ninth amendment says is that the absence of enumeration of a right is not a basis to deny that right. It does not preclude denying an unenumerated right on the basis of an enumerated power. That is should be regarded as trivially obvious, otherwise no new regulatory laws could be passed at all.

post #94 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Oh fair enough - I agree that it should be a natural right, but clearly it isn't everywhere.

 

No. It is a right for everyone everywhere. It's simply that in many areas it is not protected for some by the institution (the state) that ought to and/or it is infringed upon or restricted more by those who have power to do so.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Not exactly. All that the ninth amendment says is that the absence of enumeration of a right is not a basis to deny that right.

 

Yes. The 9th amendment says this:

 

 

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

There is a fairly plain a straightforward reading here that suggests that "just because we enumerated X rights doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. We just didn't list them all." 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It does not preclude denying an unenumerated right on the basis of an enumerated power.

 

It doesn't? Really? Perhaps we have differing understanding of what a "right" is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is should be regarded as trivially obvious, otherwise no new regulatory laws could be passed at all.

 

Well shouldn't be anyway, yeah. Obviously many could have.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Not exactly. All that the ninth amendment says is that the absence of enumeration of a right is not a basis to deny that right.

 

Yes. The 9th amendment says this:

 

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

There is a fairly plain a straightforward reading here that suggests that "just because we enumerated X rights doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. We just didn't list them all." 

 

Agreed. But it also doesn't mean that anything else that you can think you might want to do is a valid unenumerated right.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It does not preclude denying an unenumerated right on the basis of an enumerated power.

 

It doesn't? Really? Perhaps we have differing understanding of what a "right" is.

 

 

It doesn't, at least as determined by the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. See paragraph 9.

post #96 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Agreed. But it also doesn't mean that anything else that you can think you might want to do is a valid unenumerated right.

 

Agreed.

 

For example:

 

...the "right" to free healthcare.

...the "right" to a "living wage."

...the "right" to free birth control.

 

Like that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It doesn't, at least as determined by the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. See paragraph 9.

 

I think I'll take what the government thinks its limitations are with a grain of salt. TYVM. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Agreed. But it also doesn't mean that anything else that you can think you might want to do is a valid unenumerated right.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It doesn't, at least as determined by the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. See paragraph 9.

 

I think I'll take what the government thinks its limitations are with a grain of salt. TYVM. lol.gif

 

That's fine, but if your argument has become that you reject judicial interpretation of the Constitution then there is not much left to discuss, since your position is moot. Who would you like to see as the interpreting authority? Other than yourself, of course.

post #98 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's fine, but if your argument has become that you reject judicial interpretation of the Constitution then there is not much left to discuss, since your position is moot. Who would you like to see as the interpreting authority? Other than yourself, of course.

 

I'm merely suggesting a bit of skepticism of any authority that deems itself as the primary decider of what its limits, powers and authority it is. I'm also suggesting applying logic and reason to these questions.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #99 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Agreed. But it also doesn't mean that anything else that you can think you might want to do is a valid unenumerated right.

 

Agreed.

 

For example:

 

...the "right" to free healthcare.

...the "right" to a "living wage."

...the "right" to free birth control.

 

Like that?

 

 

Yes - just my opinion, but those are not natural rights. Which is not to say that a society may not choose to grant them if it judges them to be beneficial.

post #100 of 207
Thread Starter 

This will either cover your screen with a mouthful of your favourite beverage, or make you so sick of Mitt Romney, you'll be glad when the election is finally over, or both-

 

 

"In an interview with ABC News Thursday evening, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that, after it was all said and done, the Obama administration concluded that his criticism of their handling of yesterday's embassy attacks was, indeed, valid.

“What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well,” Romney told George Stephanopoulos.

This is fairly impressive verbal gymnastics. Yes, the White House distanced itself from the initial statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that apologized for a crass anti-Muslim film that had been making the rounds on the Internet. And yes, Romney also criticized the issuance of that statement.

But Romney also accused the president of sympathizing with the rioters because of that initial statement, despite the fact that the embassy released it hours before the attacks took place. And while Romney may want to focus attention elsewhere, it was that specific attack on Obama that had Democrats, foreign policy experts, and a good chunk of Republicans criticizing his conduct. His statement didn't comport with the actual timeline of events."

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #101 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - just my opinion, but those are not natural rights. Which is not to say that a society may not choose to grant them if it judges them to be beneficial.

 

We probably agree (at least partly). They are not natural rights. The trouble comes when "society" decides to grant these privileges at the expense of everyone regardless of whether they agree to grant them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's fine, but if your argument has become that you reject judicial interpretation of the Constitution then there is not much left to discuss, since your position is moot. Who would you like to see as the interpreting authority? Other than yourself, of course.

 

I'm merely suggesting a bit of skepticism of any authority that deems itself as the primary decider of what its limits, powers and authority it is. I'm also suggesting applying logic and reason to these questions.

 

Totally agree with you. However, my application of logic seems to lead me to a different conclusion than yours. Here's a question that might help reconcile: I know that you are philosophically opposed to government regulation, but do you accept that it is necessary to any degree at all, and if so, how does one decide what is OK and what is not?

post #103 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - just my opinion, but those are not natural rights. Which is not to say that a society may not choose to grant them if it judges them to be beneficial.

 

We probably agree (at least partly). They are not natural rights. The trouble comes when "society" decides to grant these privileges at the expense of everyone regardless of whether they agree to grant them.

 

Well the nature of a democracy is that the majority prevails.

post #104 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Totally agree with you. However, my application of logic seems to lead me to a different conclusion than yours.

 

Maybe. Maybe not as much as you think in many cases.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I know that you are philosophically opposed to government regulation, but do you accept that it is necessary to any degree at all, and if so, how does one decide what is OK and what is not?

 

I don't think it's necessary to any degree.

 

I think the state, if it must exist, has only one purpose and responsibility and that is to protect the basic natural rights of life, liberty and property* of the occupants of the territory it protects.

 

*The basic rights would also imply some additional, logical, derivative rights such as the right to self-defense, the right to trade or exchange with whomever and under whatever terms the trading partners mutually and voluntarily agree to, the right to join together with others for some common goal so long as they don't infringe on these same rights of other individuals, etc.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #105 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Totally agree with you. However, my application of logic seems to lead me to a different conclusion than yours.

 

Maybe. Maybe not as much as you think in many cases.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I know that you are philosophically opposed to government regulation, but do you accept that it is necessary to any degree at all, and if so, how does one decide what is OK and what is not?

 

I don't think it's necessary to any degree.

 

I think the state, if it must exist, has only one purpose and responsibility and that is to protect the basic natural rights of life, liberty and property* of the occupants of the territory it protects.

 

*The basic rights would also imply some additional, logical, derivative rights such as the right to self-defense, the right to trade or exchange with whomever and under whatever terms the trading partners mutually and voluntarily agree to, the right to join together with others for some common goal so long as they don't infringe on these same rights of other individuals, etc.

 

OK - so what about infrastructure?  Roads, schools, utilities, etc.? How do we pay for them without taxes? How do we maintain the military without taxes? How do we fund the legal system? But then how do we have taxes under your model? What am I missing here?

post #106 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - so what about infrastructure?  Roads, schools, utilities, etc.? How do we pay for them without taxes? How do we maintain the military without taxes? How do we fund the legal system? But then how do we have taxes under your model? What am I missing here?

 

Why can't those things* be done privately?

 

NOTE: I did indicate that if the state must exist it would exist only for the purpose of protecting the basic rights of its territorial occupants. That could be paid for with taxation. But even these services could be private.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #107 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - so what about infrastructure?  Roads, schools, utilities, etc.? How do we pay for them without taxes? How do we maintain the military without taxes? How do we fund the legal system? But then how do we have taxes under your model? What am I missing here?

 

Why can't those things* be done privately?

 

NOTE: I did indicate that if the state must exist it would exist only for the purpose of protecting the basic rights of its territorial occupants. That could be paid for with taxation. But even these services could be private.

 

In theory I guess they could be, but I with no regulatory or coordination function I would expect chaos to ensue. A private judiciary and military sounds especially bad. In any case, can you think of any example of a society or civilization that has successfully used such a model? And I thought that taxation was an infringement of your natural rights.

post #108 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In theory I guess they could be

 

OK

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

but I with no regulatory or coordination function I would expect chaos to ensue

 

Why?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A private judiciary and military sounds especially bad.

 

Why?

 

(I suppose it depends on what you think a "military" does in such a case.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In any case, can you think of any example of a society or civilization that has successfully used such a model?

 

No. I don't know of any that have tried.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And I thought that taxation was an infringement of your natural rights.

 

It is. But you'll note that I've suggested something that at least minimizes it. Even then I suggest it might be possible to do without it altogether.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #109 of 207

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

but I with no regulatory or coordination function I would expect chaos to ensue

 

Why?

 

You surely can't be serious? Because there would be no regulation or coordination, so no consistency, no top-down planning, no mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse, no standards etc. I could go on, but probably not necessary.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A private judiciary and military sounds especially bad.

 

Why?

 

(I suppose it depends on what you think a "military" does in such a case.)

 

 

Because if private, whose rules do they enforce? Those most beneficial to the entity paying them presumably, which would no longer be the people.  And in that case, what I think a military does is just whatever it wants to.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In any case, can you think of any example of a society or civilization that has successfully used such a model?

 

No. I don't know of any that have tried.

 

Right. If there were they didn't last long enough to be in the history books. I wonder if there is a conclusion to be drawn from that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And I thought that taxation was an infringement of your natural rights.

 

It is. But you'll note that I've suggested something that at least minimizes it. Even then I suggest it might be possible to do without it altogether.

 

You suggested minimizing it by removing all institutionalized support for society and then hoping that someone will step in and take over those roles. Quite how they would get paid is unclear, but I suspect that you just set up the perfect precursor for a return to feudalism, just with bigger and better tools of repression.

post #111 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You surely can't be serious?

 

I am.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because there would be no regulation or coordination, so no consistency, no top-down planning, no mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse, no standards etc. I could go on, but probably not necessary.

 

Actually it not necessary for you to go on. But it might be necessary for you to support your claims that:

 

a) there would be no regulation or coordination

b) no consistency

c) no mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse

d) no standards

 

As well as your assumption that "top-down planning" is required for any or all of those things (among other things, I assume).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because if private, whose rules do they enforce? Those most beneficial to the entity paying them presumably, which would no longer be the people.  And in that case, what I think a military does is just whatever it wants to.

 

Well, the rules to be enforced would basically be "don't tread on me." If you assume that in this kind of world "might would be right"...that's certainly possible. But then we'd have what we have now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Right. If there were they didn't last long enough to be in the history books. I wonder if there is a conclusion to be drawn from that?

 

Well I see you've drawn a conclusion. But it seems you are jumping to it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You suggested minimizing it by removing all institutionalized support for society and then hoping that someone will step in and take over those roles. Quite how they would get paid is unclear, but I suspect that you just set up the perfect precursor for a return to feudalism, just with bigger and better tools of repression.

 

This last statement confuses me a bit. Let me try to clarify my position.

 

In purely philosophical terms I'd call myself an anarchy-capitalist, wherein I believe that a world can exist and in which society can survive and thrive without the use of coercion (and thus, the state) and that people can fruitfully interact on a voluntary basis.

 

That said, I believe a step in that direct absent pure anarchism is what we might call "minarchism"...the minimum amount of government necessary. That's what I was referring to in that last item. The minimal "night watchman" state. This is not the ideal, but it would be better than what we have now in my opinion and closer to a world in which any entity is given the power to use coercion. At least the one that exists has its use of power very dramatically reduced as compared to present times.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because there would be no regulation or coordination, so no consistency, no top-down planning, no mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse, no standards etc. I could go on, but probably not necessary.

 

Actually it not necessary for you to go on. But it might be necessary for you to support your claims that:

 

a) there would be no regulation or coordination

b) no consistency

c) no mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse

d) no standards

 

As well as your assumption that "top-down planning" is required for any or all of those things (among other things, I assume).

 

 

My reasoning is that all of the above are implemented institutionally - at least I can't think of any that are not. And if one considers societies where institutional control becomes weak, one sees infrastructure decline. Post-Soviet Russia is an example. Perhaps you have some ideas on how those mechanisms might be replaced effectively by ad hoc development, but it seems unlikely to me. Can you point to any society in which even a move in this direction has been successful? That might provide some pointers on how it could be achieved.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because if private, whose rules do they enforce? Those most beneficial to the entity paying them presumably, which would no longer be the people.  And in that case, what I think a military does is just whatever it wants to.

 

Well, the rules to be enforced would basically be "don't tread on me." If you assume that in this kind of world "might would be right"...that's certainly possible. But then we'd have what we have now.

 

 

Except we don't have that - domestically we have a fairly well-functioning democracy were the majority is right. As far as I can see your model actually disenfranchises you because you cease to have any say over the entities with power - the private military, private judiciary etc.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Right. If there were they didn't last long enough to be in the history books. I wonder if there is a conclusion to be drawn from that?

 

Well I see you've drawn a conclusion. But it seems you are jumping to it.

 

 

I suspect that the most obvious explanation - that it simply doesn't work - is more likely than perhaps "no one ever thought of it before so it's never been tried", so yes, I have a tentative conclusion at least. Why do you think I am jumping to it? That's a meaningless criticism on its own. Why does the lack of supporting data not suggest that conclusion?

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You suggested minimizing it by removing all institutionalized support for society and then hoping that someone will step in and take over those roles. Quite how they would get paid is unclear, but I suspect that you just set up the perfect precursor for a return to feudalism, just with bigger and better tools of repression.

 

This last statement confuses me a bit. Let me try to clarify my position.

 

In purely philosophical terms I'd call myself an anarchy-capitalist, wherein I believe that a world can exist and in which society can survive and thrive without the use of coercion (and thus, the state) and that people can fruitfully interact on a voluntary basis.

 

That said, I believe a step in that direct absent pure anarchism is what we might call "minarchism"...the minimum amount of government necessary. That's what I was referring to in that last item. The minimal "night watchman" state. This is not the ideal, but it would be better than what we have now in my opinion and closer to a world in which any entity is given the power to use coercion. At least the one that exists has its use of power very dramatically reduced as compared to present times.

 

 

I admire your faith in the idea of a level of widespread human cooperation that would be needed to make that work, but it seems strangely at odds with your obvious cynicism regarding all other attempts at self-government.

post #113 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

My reasoning is that all of the above are implemented institutionally - at least I can't think of any that are not.

 

That may be but it doesn't mean that they have to be or that, if they are, the institution must be a governmental one (in the way we're talking about "government"...i.e., the state).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Perhaps you have some ideas on how those mechanisms might be replaced effectively by ad hoc development, but it seems unlikely to me.

 

Actually there are lots of examples where order and coordination come about without state coercion. Perhaps you're not looking hard enough or with open enough eyes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Except we don't have that - domestically we have a fairly well-functioning democracy were the majority is right. As far as I can see your model actually disenfranchises you because you cease to have any say over the entities with power - the private military, private judiciary etc.

 

I guess we disagree. That aside, in the US we weren't intended to have a democracy so much as a constitutional republic that actually protected minorities from majorities (who are quite often wrong.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I suspect that the most obvious explanation - that it simply doesn't work - is more likely than perhaps "no one ever thought of it before so it's never been tried", so yes, I have a tentative conclusion at least.

 

That's possible.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why do you think I am jumping to it?

 

I don't know. Because it fits with what you want to conclude?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I admire your faith in the idea of a level of widespread human cooperation that would be needed to make that work, but it seems strangely at odds with your obvious cynicism regarding all other attempts at self-government.

 

I don't think its at odds at all.

 

My cynicism is with the notion that the widespread use of coercion is a necessary tool for structuring civilized society. The cynicism comes, in part, from the view that this so-called "self-government" has obviously eroded over time to the point where we don't really have "self-government" in an real sense of what that phrase means. What we seem to have instead is a society in which many feel they have a "right" to other people's property and seek to take it and a few who feel they have "right" to regulate and dictate even the most minute details of people's lives.

 

But I guess we just see things differently.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #114 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Perhaps you have some ideas on how those mechanisms might be replaced effectively by ad hoc development, but it seems unlikely to me.

 

Actually there are lots of examples where order and coordination come about without state coercion. Perhaps you're not looking hard enough or with open enough eyes.

 

I cannot rule out that possibility, but if you have looked and found such examples, sharing one or two would help me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Except we don't have that - domestically we have a fairly well-functioning democracy were the majority is right. As far as I can see your model actually disenfranchises you because you cease to have any say over the entities with power - the private military, private judiciary etc.

 

I guess we disagree. That aside, in the US we weren't intended to have a democracy so much as a constitutional republic that actually protected minorities from majorities (who are quite often wrong.)

 

A constitutional republic is just a democracy with embedded protections (the constitution).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I suspect that the most obvious explanation - that it simply doesn't work - is more likely than perhaps "no one ever thought of it before so it's never been tried", so yes, I have a tentative conclusion at least.

 

That's possible.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why do you think I am jumping to it?

 

I don't know. Because it fits with what you want to conclude?

 

Please don't presume that I want to conclude anything. I try to draw my conclusions from evidence, not preconceptions, so by all means challenge my conclusions with evidence, but don't try to invalidate them by just asserting that they are my desired outcome.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I admire your faith in the idea of a level of widespread human cooperation that would be needed to make that work, but it seems strangely at odds with your obvious cynicism regarding all other attempts at self-government.

 

I don't think its at odds at all.

 

My cynicism is with the notion that the widespread use of coercion is a necessary tool for structuring civilized society. The cynicism comes, in part, from the view that this so-called "self-government" has obviously eroded over time to the point where we don't really have "self-government" in an real sense of what that phrase means. What we seem to have instead is a society in which many feel they have a "right" to other people's property and seek to take it and a few who feel they have "right" to regulate and dictate even the most minute details of people's lives.

 

But I guess we just see things differently.

 

I've heard this view expressed repeatedly, and I wish I understood what underpins it. In what sense do we not have self-government? We have full and equal suffrage. We have arguably the most personal freedoms of any developed country, constitutionally protected. We have a range of political opinion, that, disregarding the marginalized fringes, ranges from mild socialism to fairly strong conservatism. All perfectly valid. So I have the suspicion that those who express this view simply don't like that they are not part of the majority. And I'm tempted to say that if you don't like the majority point of view then rather than wanting to impose your alternative model on society - its a free country - you can always leave and go elsewhere.

post #115 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot rule out that possibility, but if you have looked and found such examples, sharing one or two would help me.

 

Please don't presume that I want to conclude anything. I try to draw my conclusions from evidence, not preconceptions, so by all means challenge my conclusions with evidence, but don't try to invalidate them by just asserting that they are my desired outcome.

 

I don't have any examples. But are you arguing that because there are none, it cannot happen or exist?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I've heard this view expressed repeatedly, and I wish I understood what underpins it. In what sense do we not have self-government? We have full and equal suffrage. We have arguably the most personal freedoms of any developed country, constitutionally protected. We have a range of political opinion, that, disregarding the marginalized fringes, ranges from mild socialism to fairly strong conservatism. All perfectly valid. So I have the suspicion that those who express this view simply don't like that they are not part of the majority.

 

I guess we see things differently.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And I'm tempted to say that if you don't like the majority point of view then rather than wanting to impose your alternative model on society - its a free country - you can always leave and go elsewhere.

 

It' one option I'm strongly considering. The other is to try and inform, persuade and convince more and more people of the value of greater personal liberty and voluntary, non-aggressive interactions as opposed to those that rely upon aggressiveness to achieve their objectives.

 

However, I've pointed out to other posters who more quickly resort to this suggestion, leaving the US and renouncing US citizenship is not the easiest for freest thing to do and the wealthier you are the more costly and difficult it is.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #116 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot rule out that possibility, but if you have looked and found such examples, sharing one or two would help me.

 

Please don't presume that I want to conclude anything. I try to draw my conclusions from evidence, not preconceptions, so by all means challenge my conclusions with evidence, but don't try to invalidate them by just asserting that they are my desired outcome.

 

I don't have any examples. But are you arguing that because there are none, it cannot happen or exist?

 

No - not that it can't happen. Just that it seems improbable to me, so if there were some examples it would help figure out how such a model might work.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I've heard this view expressed repeatedly, and I wish I understood what underpins it. In what sense do we not have self-government? We have full and equal suffrage. We have arguably the most personal freedoms of any developed country, constitutionally protected. We have a range of political opinion, that, disregarding the marginalized fringes, ranges from mild socialism to fairly strong conservatism. All perfectly valid. So I have the suspicion that those who express this view simply don't like that they are not part of the majority.

 

I guess we see things differently.

 

Clearly - but which of the above do you disagree with, and why? You said that we don't have self-government - I argued how and why we do - can you counter with how and why we don't?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And I'm tempted to say that if you don't like the majority point of view then rather than wanting to impose your alternative model on society - its a free country - you can always leave and go elsewhere.

 

It' one option I'm strongly considering. The other is to try and inform, persuade and convince more and more people of the value of greater personal liberty and voluntary, non-aggressive interactions as opposed to those that rely upon aggressiveness to achieve their objectives.

 

However, I've pointed out to other posters who more quickly resort to this suggestion, leaving the US and renouncing US citizenship is not the easiest for freest thing to do and the wealthier you are the more costly and difficult it is.

 

 

Persuasion is an absolutely legitimate and reasonable strategy. I'm not persuaded yet, although my reservations are more on how far you want to take this, rather than on the principle of minimizing regulation.

 

On the other hand, if you were to leave, where would you consider going to that might be better?

 

post #117 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - not that it can't happen. Just that it seems improbable to me, so if there were some examples it would help figure out how such a model might work.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not persuaded yet, although my reservations are more on how far you want to take this, rather than on the principle of minimizing regulation.

 

I understand. If you're so inclined, you might be interested in checking out "For a New Liberty" (multiple forms available for consumption) which addresses many of the ideas we've been discussing much more systematically and comprehensively than is possible in this forum.


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/14/12 at 7:21am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #118 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - not that it can't happen. Just that it seems improbable to me, so if there were some examples it would help figure out how such a model might work.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not persuaded yet, although my reservations are more on how far you want to take this, rather than on the principle of minimizing regulation.

 

I understand. If you're so inclined, you might be interested in checking out "For a New Liberty" (multiple forms available for consumption) which addresses many of the ideas we've been discussing much more systematically and comprehensively than is possible in this forum.

 

I'll check it out, thanks.  And good luck with the countries you mentioned before editing your post. Good places, but all three have quite strong socialist influences.

post #119 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'll check it out, thanks.  And good luck with the countries you mentioned before editing your post. Good places, but all three have quite strong socialist influences.

 

Almost every country does. But some are trending in the right direction. I believe the US is going in the opposite direction. The US has the additional issue of having become a world empire whereas these smaller countries don't seem to have such aspirations. Mauritius is my favorite choice. Lovely weather. Completely off almost anyone's radar. Trending about fast toward greater liberty as the US is away from it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #120 of 207

In light of current events the really frightening thing about the film and the filmmakers is that these are the same type of people who are likely voting for Romney. Hell who knows perhaps this is a Romney campaign film.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bloody Hell Romney: Show Some Patriotism During This Awful Crisis!