I guess it depends on if you're a "no taxation whatsoever" type of libertarian or "limited taxation" one.
Then again, it's one of those titles and classifications for political and economic views that's extremely widespread and widely (arguably incorrectly) used. Which is fine.
I believe in representable taxation. That is, taxation that makes sense to the action it purports to tax.
You can probably tie land taxes to land value and eminent domain. People choose what the land is worth to them, and they're taxed on that (or, y'know, by something sane like the market). There are lots of issues here with how often they can change it and so forth, of course.
Land taxation can be argued to be your payment on land owned by government, or at least protected by it. Fine.
Income taxes? Not unless government protects your "right" to work.
Sales taxes? Not unless government protects your "right" to buy or sell.
And so on.
Granted, you can argue one way or the other for any tax and how its justifiable to what it does, but that sounds like more mental effort than I care to exert at 9am.
So you have a limited set of taxation, and limited applications thereof. Defense and emergencies.
Or whatever. Clearly I haven't thought it out.
Anyone who outright opposes all taxation usually strikes me as a lunatic, however.
If you want a clearer understanding of the term "public health", I highly recommend reading Laurie Garrett's books, beginning with Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, continuing with The Coming Plague, and finally Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC. Her work is extremely readable and, at times, spellbinding. The Coming Plague won a Pulitzer Prize.
I'm not sure how he could have NOT come across at least one Libertarian that could explain such things.
Libertarians don't want to eliminate government(but anarchists do). They see a need for some government, just very limited, like police and courts. Laws against murder, assault, robbery, rape, burglary, etc are fine. They just don't believe in having a large, aggressive government.
So let me answer his questions:
"How do we provide for the national defense?"
Like we do now for the most part. No standing army (the Founders hated that idea for a reason). A Navy is fine, as is organized state-based Militias. No overseas bases. We do not need to be in other countries business- it only leads to more wars for us. Having a strong Air Force would also be necessary, as is Border Patrol and
Coast Guard.
Really, not that much would be different now- except we wouldn't be starting wars because we couldn't- but we could defend ourselves just fine.
"How do we defend against domestic enemies, to include criminals?"
Again, the same way now. I don't see how this is even a question. Courts and police to stop criminals, with a well-armed populace to help out. Given that there would be a fair number of Militia members around, that would help in emergencies (like a Hurricane).
"And what about public health? By which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine. "
This one is a little tougher, but maybe I don't understand the question. Does he mean forcing vaccines, or stopping the spread of outbreaks?
Obviously, the former is not allowed from a libertarian viewpoint. The latter could be, in this way. If an area did have an outbreak of a potent virus, the government could conceivable stop people from leaving until they have been tested to not have the virus. Because by leaving, they would forcibly infect another person- which would kill them. That could be a form of aggression, whether they intended it or not.
But there is a slipperily slope there of course. Governments have not been good at that kind of power. It could be easily abused.
Um... Matt, I understand the sentiments of not wanting a standing army, but I disagree there.
A standing army ensures an ongoing and trained army. If the United States is attacked, we don't have to wait a month of delay to train men up. They're there, they're ready.
Please tell me how having bases in other countries leads us to more wars.
Watch on the Rhine was pretty good, but I would STRONGLY recommend (mostly, sans the Paladin of Shadows series) everything else the main author of the book, John Ringo, wrote....and most of it is free online.
I really haven't enjoyed Kratman as an author. I believe his first novel was State of Disobendience, a VERY thinly veiled version of his view of history if Hillary had won the White House. While I thought Watch on the Rhine was ok, Yellow Eyes was just horrible for me.
In fact, forcible vaccinations could very well be consistent with a libertarian viewpoint, as explicated by Robert Nozick.
If you do not get a vaccine, you are imposing a public bad on everyone around you, in the form of increased risk of infection. Thus, you would be forced to compensate your neighbors for the risk you are forcing them to take. Or, you could just get the vaccine.
The rub, which applies more generally to this kind of a compensatory scheme, is: who is determining how much the compensation should be? Nozick does not adequately answer.
I believe his first novel was State of Disobendience, a VERY thinly veiled version of his view of history if Hillary had won the White House.
Actually, during one part of the interview Kratman states that Hillary was not the model for that book. He said (I paraphrase) that he thought Hillary, while bad, wouldn't be that bad. His model was someone along the lines of Nancy Pelosi.
Otter: Also per the interview, Ringo wrote the outline for Watch on the Rhine, and Kratman wrote the actual story.
And yes, "Oh John Ringo, No!" That is the funniest review I have ever read in my life, and I agree with every word of it.
And I still read every book in the "Ghost" series. I winced a lot, but I still read 'em.
Micheal Z. Williamson wrote a couple excellent books. Freehold and The Weapon tell the story of a libertarian star nation (one of their ships is named the Robert A Heinlein.) which is attacked by the UN controlled, thoroughly socialist Earth circa 2500. Very good stuff, I highly recommend it.
Libertarians don't believe in polio vaccines, or TB, or even rubella?? Not gonna survive in the real world very long or in condition to reproduce well.
Well, he's nailed some of the issues that divide minarchists from anarcho-capitalists. I don't yet have good, concise answers to give on those. I do think they're solvable problems; Hans Herman Hoppe has some ideas on how things would work in a stateless society, but what I've read of him deals with theory, and not how to get there from here.
A truly libertarian society would not have our current anti-discrimination laws. You can easily see a situation where private employers, schools and other associations just refuse to deal with people who don't have vaccinations. That kind of thing rubs us wrong unless its the government mandating it, but that doesn't mean it can't work.
Defense against criminals I think is solved in principle, through a combination of local elected law enforcement, private security companies, self defense, posses when necessary and insurance.
Defense against foreign enemies is the big challenge, the ultimate free rider problem. You might need a militia culture to pull it off. There are also glimmerings that an armed force could be funded by big private insurance companies, by building it into property insurance. Again, what's lacking is more of an idea of how to get there from here.
Having typed all that, now I'm not sure I should grant the premise. There's no organized libertarian movement to sell the federal courts to insurance companies or make the marine corps an employee-owned corporation. What libertarians largely agree on is lower taxes and lower spending on Constitutionally enumerated powers.
On foreign defense again, remembering the liberal bumper sticker on school funding and bake sales for bombers... why the heck not? American civilians shoot 9 billion rounds of ammunition in a year, I believe. We've got an active private aviation field. We've still got machine gun shoots even after the arbitrary and punitive laws and expenses imposed. We've got collectors who buy and restore military vehicles. Put all those trends together in a truly free society, one with truly minimal taxes but legal peer pressure, and even allowing for free riders its possible you could equip a military just with geeks, hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers.
You can easily see a situation where private employers, schools and other associations just refuse to deal with people who don't have vaccinations.
Really? How do you identify them?
"List three things that are more important than your freedom and liberty."
I think those three questions specifically address ones freedom and liberty. Pardon me if I don't grasp your subtlety.
Put all those trends together in a truly free society, one with truly minimal taxes but legal peer pressure, and even allowing for free riders its possible you could equip a military just with geeks, hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers.
Honestly, ask yourself how long such a force could stand up to an integrated, trained and equipped force like our current military with its logistics backing?
Not thirty days. Probably not more than thirty hours.
I see something missing from that list. "How do we protect environmental quality?" I'm not talking about saving spotted owls, I'm talking about preserving air and water quality adequate to, again, public health (and preservation of necessary resources). There is no way that I've ever heard proposed to give a free-market solution adequate for preserving the water quality and capability of an aquifer, and not all diseases can be vaccinated for- cholera and typhus you have to prevent by keeping your public water clean. London used to have smog-fogs that were literally lethal- how do we prevent those without imposing regulations on businesses?
As for refusing to deal with people who are unvaccinated, how in hell are we going to do that? Smallpox vaccines are the only kind that ever left a visible scar or other identifier. Word of mouth? What happens if people just, y'know, move?
As for private security and posses and purely elected local law enforcement... can anyone explain to me what mechanism will prevent this system from becoming indistinguishable from feudalism without the heritable caste system? If all force is for hire, what's to stop the formation of organized thuggery and warlords, such as the actual governments of many countries effectively are? Even if you take away the government, that sounds like the system Somalia has now, which I've never found appealing.
LabRat, my philosophy with pollution and such has always been "buy it." If you want to keep a water supply clean, you buy it. If you own one section of river and someone dumps upriver, sue them. Seems to me that's the whole point of a litigation system. Call it property damage.
As for the third point... hm. Actually, sometimes I have to wonder if it's been purely the culture of the United States that's managed to keep a balance of power and kept our police forces relatively neutral. I have to honestly wonder if it just comes down to the sheer initial size of our legislature.
That seems to me to indicate a problem with a court system. Isn't the alternative tying up legislation while it gets done?
I'm confused as to how it doesn't handle the latter. If they don't care, and they are causing property damage to others' land, water, or air (granted, that'd be an interesting deed to handle), it's still handled through litigation against that person.
The current method simply makes use of the legislative rather than civil judicial branch.
Especially if your social goal is reducing government regulation to an absolute minimum, what makes you think that suing people will be not only less common, but less frivolous than it is now, so as to make lawsuits a swift and effective measure of redressing grievance? As it stands, the court system (and I should know, as I am currently dealing with it) is glacially slow- in large part because it is seriously overburdened by bullshit.
For that matter, in a society where there is no such thing as agreed standards of pollutants, how do you prove somebody else is polluting to the point where some sort of social redress is merited? Remember, we're trying to take the use of force down to a minimum-possible.
In situations like aquifers, which soak up water from all over a massive area, how do you even prove who's polluting- and how do you parcel out ownership of an aquifer?
Valid questions, yes, but these questions also must be answered by any government entity, particularly when it's evaluating if someone is actively causing pollution.
How does an environmental agency agree on pollutants? How does it prove the very same things?
I just don't really see how arbitration through law is any different than arbitration through precedent here.
Granted, when I approach something like this, I make a lot of assumptions. I assume steps have been taken to reduce frivolous lawsuits (loser pays, removal of license to practice for X interval from any law firm which has Y number of cases thrown out in Z interval for frivolity, etc).
Aside from a slow court system, what problems does litigation face uniquely that an environmental agency doesn't?
If you do not get a vaccine, you are imposing a public bad on everyone around you, in the form of increased risk of infection. Thus, you would be forced to compensate your neighbors for the risk you are forcing them to take. Or, you could just get the vaccine.
Mastiff: How does that work, exactly? I mean, aren't people who are not-vaccinated only a threat to other people who aren't vaccinated? I mean, if I'm immune to a disease that you're not vaccinated for, and you get it, how does this threaten me? Other than with uproarious laughter at the stupidity, of course.
Actually, sorry. I didn't entirely grasp your question.
Yes, I concede that a minimal government would handle civil cases even slower and probably more horrifically. Hence the reason I don't support minimal government for the sake of it being minimal.
For the environmental agency type question specifically, yes, I think this should be directly legislative or handled via litigation. Where I **** bricks is in the delegation of authority from legislation to regulatory agencies (FCC, FDA, etc).
Adam- I'll get back to you when I've thought more on your revised answer, but meanwhile...
perlhaqr- No vaccine is 100%. The whole concept of "herd immunity" is structured around the threshold at which the vaccine functionally is that way because exposure is so low; with a lot of unvaccinated people (or livestock, hence the phrase), some of the vaccinated will inevitably succumb as well, a bigger chunk the more unvaccinated there are.
If society goes to hell in a handbasket because 50% of the population dies, do you think that would pose increased threat to those who were vaccinated?
LabRat and Adam, the whole notion of suing instead of appealing to gubmint is a non sequitur.
Have you ever sued someone and won? Once you've won a judgement against the other guy, how do you collect it? A court order is not self-enforcing, and it does not authorize trespass. So, you take the court order to another part of the gubmint, the police, and the police enforce it for you.
Oversimplified, is it? Yeah, probably so. But I've been there and done that, and that's how I did it.
I like libertarianism, but it's fatal flaw, methinks, is that it depends on voluntary cooperation. All it takes to bring it to its knees is one asshole who just doesn't care, and all it takes to bring everyone to his knees with his head on a block is one such asshole with a lust for power.
Side note- proving vaccination is easy; you bring your medical record to whatever initiation proceeding you're doing and they check it. Don't like that? Well, nobody's forcing you to join.
I actually agree, DJ. One thing to note is that destruction of private property and the litigation to recover those damages against the destructor is already a function of our government, and a fairly long-standing one of most court systems with civil litigations (that is, to my knowledge, the main point of litigation).
The reason I prefer that issue go to the government THAT way, as opposed to through delegation or legislation (though the latter is certainly more preferable, as government delegations such as the FCC aren't very strongly bound in constitutional terms), is that it's still a relatively private contract, even if enforced by government.
Er... that doesn't make much sense. Litigation is sometimes frivolous and often slow, and, yes, you do often need to go to actual agents of government force to push them through, but it is still a system that only acts on a push/pull basis. Delegation and legislation are sort of a stamp-all approach - these laws apply to everyone, to all cases, regardless of actual damage, intent of damage, scope of damage, etc.
Also, I'd daresay legislation is much more open to abuse than lawsuit... but... that's a matter for large debate.
I'm still thinking, but I will note the two things that are coming to mind...
1)Isn't litigation ultimately dependent upon legislation? It's asking the government to enforce the law. Which raises the question of why require someone to hire a lawyer and bring suit in the first place before anything can possibly be done?
2)With systems like air, water, and soil, there is effectively no such thing as only polluting your own air and water. The way the systems are naturally tied together, pollutants always travel; this is why agricultural runoff from North Dakota (for starters) becomes a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Why go through the pretense of "that guy is damaging my property with his carelessness on his property" and add another layer of bureaucracy to the problem when the careless guy is automatically creating problems for everyone else?
Yes, litigation is based on legislation. Litigation is, effectively, the application of laws against individuals from individuals. That's fine and dandy. The advantage of litigation (and also it's potential downfall) is that it allows wider use of general laws.
For example, governments cannot (at least ours and what we so far seem to consider the best example one) enforce general laws for specific cases. Having a law against damaging the property of another does not necessarily include pollution. Having a law against damaging land values can often have too widespread uses or applications - my argument against HOA "your lawn must be cut or it lowers our land values" views has always been that they are too susceptible to extremes (if it's an all-white neighborhood in a racist area, does a black person moving in constitute a damage to property values? It certainly might lower the value to the current residents).
So the advantage there (and, again, the downfall) to litigation is it allows these general rules to be spread to include other aspects. You don't strictly need an entire government branch to monitor, regulate, and arbitrate what constitutes a pollution, in what quantities, at what fines, etc - you need only have a limited set of laws covering basic property damages, and allow people to use the civil court system to enforce those against each other.
The civil system also has chains of appeals and a fairly linear hierarchy for both determining precedent and for moving upward. Granted, our current system makes this simultaneously too costly to defend and too cheap to attack, but, as always, I'm assuming a blue sky.
Then again, any libertarian argument assumes a blue sky :)
As for #2, you can't make people care, not even through legislation. I guess I just lean toward the idea that I'd rather actually be causing damage to someone else who cares and that retribution rather than a general retribution against an incredibly (and inherently) bureaucratic agency that enforces laws and rules regardless of how many actual relevant parties care to press the point. It's sort of an, "It's illegal to spit on your own table" kind of approach. If you spit on my table, I go and get the policeman. If I spit on my table, I don't like the policeman coming after me because someone, somewhere else decided table spitting is generally bad.
Agencies like environmental ones create criminals for victimless crimes. If they do, indeed, have victims, then those victims can surely litigate just as well.
I argue that pretty much all of law and litigation is pretense - law is more about neutral, blind application and process than it is about strict efficiency.
I guess I just don't see too many cases where an entire agency or legislation has been necessary. In cases where we often see direct, congressional legislation, they're usually hitting a strawman, and hitting him hard.
I'd probably feel much different about the matter if the demonstrations of it I saw around me were strict legislation versus litigation, but instead I just see litigation versus agency. I have yet to see a government agency that merited its existence, particularly when you consider that their current application has thus far entirely negated the concepts of checks and balances and of the intended system of making laws.
Rather than amend the constitution, we appear to have just started creating agencies, delegating a blanket amount of power to them, and ignoring anything they do (bearing in mind they have the ability to levy fines, and send police if those fines aren't paid, which directly corresponds to the ability to send police) until someone goes through the damned trouble of suing.
Hm...but, yes... I'm going to have to think about this :)
"How do we provide for the national defense?"
Like we do now for the most part. No standing army (the Founders hated that idea for a reason). A Navy is fine, as is organized state-based Militias. No overseas bases. We do not need to be in other countries business- it only leads to more wars for us. Having a strong Air Force would also be necessary, as is Border Patrol and Coast Guard.
Bad news -
Constitutional the Air Force is part of the "Army" - that was cast with the separation of the Army Air Corps from the Army as a separate DoD Branch.
I'll have to read this thread later, when I have time. Mainly, though, I wanted to point out that the various stripes of anarcho-whateverists tend to lurk around the libertarian camps, hoping to find friends and allies from amongst the more extreme elements.
Viewed from a different perspective, it could be said that the anarcho-whateverists tend to use the libertarian brand as a stalking horse, which really poisons the well for folks who show better perspective and balance in the matter.
The result is that Age-of-Reason style liberty oriented minarchists are either chased out for reasons of ideological impurity, or leave on their own having found little of practical value in that particular memetic wasteland.
It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid.
No end can justify that means.
If you have a problem, then go solve it, but you'll have to do it without forcing my participation. In other words, you'll have to use reason to convince me to get involved.
Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest.
It may be, that in some theoretical philosophic perfect world that no right to compel one to perform one's duty to society truly exists. But it would also be true in that world that it would be just as immoral to partake of *any* benefit provided by that society.
Yes, it's true that one would have to take rather dramatic steps to avoid drawing any benefit from society whatsoever, but that is the only moral path such a paragon of moral virtue would have open to him.
"geek": "...immoral to partake of *any* benefit provided by that society..."
You are extremely confused, sonny. You have no idea on earth what "benefits" even are, and that's why you are morally incompetent to sit at this discussion. You have nothing to say to it. Do yourself a favor: be quiet and start taking notes.
While I'm at this, here's what this "geek" person wrote:
"Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest."
Cite that, you little bitch. You're saying that that's what I have "stated", and this is the part where you get to go dig it up with my name on it -- to include all your fucking bullshit about "whims" -- and bring it around for all the nice netters to see, or be known as a goddamned liar.
Do you understand?
You stepped your narrow ass in it, now fucking walk through it, creep.
Q:
------
It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid.
-Billy Beck
------
Billy Beck: You're either going to have to concede that you might owe some morally valid minimal, limited duty to your society and/or fellow men, or show how this statement of yours, and many others like it, is distinct from my characterization. Expect no one to be impressed with hand waving, smoke and mirrors.
Just because ZAP and other immunity-from-coercion theories are beautiful and internally consistent isn't enough to make them true. Nor is it enough that the theory is appealing enough that you want it to be true. Hell, I would like such theories to be true, but my critical mind demands a higher level of proof prior to acceptance.
As for your personal insults and other juvenile screechings, well, that's not something I'm willing to tolerate.
It's not my fault that you impaled yourself on a logical trap of your own construction.
Feel free to keep putting your intense assholery on display for all to see, and know that you're massively outclassed and unable to hold your own in polite, reasoned discourse.
No, I won't be sitting down, shutting up, and taking notes. You have nothing you can teach me, and you and I are done.
"Isn't litigation ultimately dependent upon legislation? It's asking the government to enforce the law. Which raises the question of why require someone to hire a lawyer and bring suit in the first place before anything can possibly be done?"
Well, efficiency alone comes to mind.
For example, the law defines and prohibits fraud. But, how does the gubmint know that an instance of fraud has been committed so that enforcement action can be taken? Because someone complained about it. A civil suit, which begins with the filing of (literally) a complaint brings it to the gubmint's attention.
A trial then brings questions of fact before a jury and brings questions of law before a judge. Those who decide the issue weren't there, so the whole issue hinges on the credibility of both sides. Once the decision is made, then the gubmint can take action to enforce its prohibition.
In contrast to that, consider what the result would be if only the gubmint could detect fraud and so file a virtual complaint. It would be either mighty intrusive, or very ineffective, or both, wouldn't it?
Kevin:
Ideological purity is a marvelous thing, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy."
Standing ovation, sir.
That is the whole of my approach to life in a single sentence. I may frame it and put it on my study wall. Really.
Before we proceed, "geek", I will note for the record that your allegation last night was a lie. From this point on, nobody owes you shit because of what you are. Fuck you.
Now, then -- you say:
"You're either going to have to concede that you might owe some morally valid minimal, limited duty to your society and/or fellow men,..."
Why? Why should I? It's your assertion: you make it valid.
The only thing that I "owe" to any of you is to leave alone to the peaceful conduct of your private affairs. That's it. There is nothing unreasonable about this (the Revolutionaries would have understood this, even if you can't), and it's what you owe me, too.
"...and you and I are done."
That's what you think, sonny. Let me explain something to you: it's a big internet and there's a long time to tag your ass with this bullshit of yours. Believe me: we're just getting started. I've been at this a lot longer than you, I'm better at it than you, and I never forget. You could ask around: I'm still tagging assholes like you for their bullshit from over fifteen years ago. If you were an honest man, there would be no problem, but you're not, and I never let that go.
"Keep standing out there thumping your chest and yelling about your principles."
You can bet on that. Conversely, one might expect that a sensible man who holds none would keep his mouth shut about the whole subject. I have no reason to suspect that you're that smart.
Mr. Beck: While I have read what you've written with much interest over the last few years, I have done the same with the Geekwitha.45, and (sorry if this disappoints you) but I find the Geek to be more closely connected to, you know, reality than you are.
So let's get one thing straight:
This is my playground. I get to decide who plays here. And if you don't alter your attitude you will be disinvited.
You want to have a pissing match? Do it elsewhere. You are not entertaining in the least. You want to discuss things civilly, I have no problem with that, but stop throwing around gratuitous insults.
I note you don't allow comments at your blog. I can certainly understand why, if you can't control your Tourette's any better than that.
I swear, if this was the 1700's, you'd have been a Mountain Man because you are constitutionally incapable of Playing Well with Others.
StephanR: "I'm pretty sure gwa45 was referring to this:
'It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.'"
If that's true, then he's worse than I thought. Go read it again: that's not what he said that I said.
"P.S. -- Ideology notwithstanding, you're acting like an asshole."
Sez you. That motherfucker lied about me and I'm the "asshole"? If that's what you think, then you can go get fucked, too.
It doesn't matter whether you people like me, and I don't care about that. You might, however, bring the ordinary integrity of grown men to this thing, goddamn you. Facts matter, to people with brains in their heads. You can act like a bunch of high-school girls twittering in the corner if you want to, but nobody worthwhile is going to respect that.
"I find the Geek to be more closely connected to, you know, reality than you are."
Bullshit, Kevin. Is that why he lied about me?
"And if you don't alter your attitude you will be disinvited."
Do it. Do it right now.
Never, Kevin: I am never, ever going to take bullshit like that from anyone. And if it happens at your place, then it is indisputably your call what happens next within that context and here in that place, but this is all that means in the end: I'm going to have my say about that bastard's lie until it's cleaned up or you throw me out of here.
There are only those two ways.
Your move, sir.
"...because you are constitutionally incapable of Playing Well with Others."
That's not true and you don't know what you're talking about. What I will not stand for is an outrage like that person's. If he'd done it to you, I wouldn't stand for it, either.
Why do you think every powerful Islamic nation is rushing to develop nukes? To blackmail America into becoming part of the Caliphate? Oh deary me, no. They know, as do you, that possessing those weapons suddenly makes worrying about navies and air forces and the rest of the rot obsolete. Try to conquer their territory, and they'll leave your homes in ash.
If America decided to have its ICBM's as its only military protection, and a couple of thousand guys to guard them, no nation on Earth could coerce it. Of course, then about 25% of the federal budget is spent on an unnecessary military and pork for the military-industrial tycoons desperate to persuade you they are still relevant.
Many Republicans are just like Democrats in their assumptions about who needs to pay for their ill-considered programs. All that's left is haggling over price- at least the Donks offer up things that might make life better for people. The morality of how they pay for it is quite a different story, however.
Both Stephen and the Geek interpreted your statement,
"It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
"Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid."
the same way. The Geek went further to state:
"It's not my fault that you impaled yourself on a logical trap of your own construction."
IF you two are willing to discuss THAT TOPIC - the LOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF YOUR STATEMENT - like two adults, I'm all for it. I think it would be an interesting and useful discussion.
If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then I invite you to drop it in this forum. You want to take it up elsewhere, I have no say about that.
But if I have to choose between allowing him to comment here, or you to comment here, I choose HIM.
"It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them."
VS.
"Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest."
Billy says that no one is taking his money without persuading him that such is a good cause. Geek says that all citizens of America have a duty to pay for society, and not doing so is "capriciously rendering" their money.
Now, personally, I think that "capriciously rendering" must be the new word for "voluntary." Moulitsas and the Kos Krowd seem to stress such terms in discussing why the rich don't pay their fair share in such terms, as well. All you're really doing is haggling over the price, now. Can't you just ask people to pay for things?
Libertarianism in effect existed in the 'Wild West' of the 19th century. The culture and the limited government faded away before WWI. I understand that Alaska is as close as it gets for libertarian living today. A problem is that the culture needed for libertarianism has to have a lot of elbow room. Any time human density goes up above a certain point, libertarian government gets changed out for something else.
Another problem is that in the cases that I am aware of where a libertarian culture existed, it has been protected and/or subsidized. The US Territories were a drain on the Treasury. Alaska costs the government five times the amount it gets back in taxes.
Libertarianism is still a more viable form of government than communism, but that isn't saying much.
You know better than that, Kevin. I'll take up any or all of this in good faith, and you know it.
I will not peacebly tolerate that person without a name for having said what he did about me; I will not have you people making his excuses for him; I will not have another civil word with him until he makes clear in his own words just how wrong he was in all its specifics and implications, to the exact degree that he wrote them in the first place.
"...I invite you to drop it in this forum..."
I will when he cleans it up, Kevin. Until then, you can bloody have him, and you will always deserve him.
Read the last line of my previous remark again. I mean it, and it's still your move.
I think the bit I find odd is that, while I don't necessarily disagree with the basic ideology that taking money for any reason whatsoever is immoral, that the only thing you can offer is "fuck you."
No rational comment, no argument. Yes, you have principles. Most of us do.
I do not believe in taxation of any form. However, I see one HELL of a benefit and being in on whatever group is providing that level of protection, because I can actually look out my window and observe the world. I can see that I do not personally own nor can I reasonably acquire the tools or arsenal to defend myself and my property in its entirety against every person or entity outside who might want to take it.
I see that benefit, and so I compromise my belief and I allow that taxation in order to be part of a particular group. It's the implicit contract of the group.
The difference is that once you acknowledge that you are on this planet, you have to realize that in order to actually exist, you have to compromise them in certain areas.
Unless you have personally killed or defrayed every person who has ever tried to collect taxes from you and removed entirely yourself from the benefit of tax-supported programs (be them social or military), you are compromising your principles.
Unless you are actively defending your own income, your own land, and your own freedoms, you are compromising them on some point or another.
I see quite a bit of this, "I draw my line in the sand, and this is where I stand, sword in hand" kind-of thinking. Aside from ranting and acting like a megalomaniac toward anyone who does not immediately concede to your points, what have you done to actually *stand* for those principles?
We're all actually quite willing to discuss and convince you to make concessions against or in line with your own principles.
Yet all you can do is come in, tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and then turn around, cross your arms, and say, "I have principles."
And you seriously wonder why we're sitting here with our jaws hanging at how ludicrously childish you act?
"I think the bit I find odd is that, while I don't necessarily disagree with the basic ideology that taking money for any reason whatsoever is immoral, that the only thing you can offer is 'fuck you.'"
You find it odd because it's not true. I can do a hell of a lot better than that, but I never give it away. Watch this:
"...because I can actually look out my window and observe the world."
Now, look, you: I do that, too. Straight off the jump, I'm at least as good at it as you are, and it would serve you well to take your implicit assumption and its one-step-removed insinuations and put them away so you and I can be nice as we can be to each other.
Now, then:
"I can see that I do not personally own nor can I reasonably acquire the tools or arsenal to defend myself and my property in its entirety against every person or entity outside who might want to take it."
You can't assemble what it takes to put a Chevrolet together, either. What's your point?
"I see that benefit, and so I compromise my belief and I allow that taxation in order to be part of a particular group."
No. That's not what you're doing at all. You're buying what you want when you hand over your money for it, in your voluntary conviction of the value to be received, and failing to make the distinction of the cases of people who are not convinced of the value at dispute, and you're doing this in order to rationalize the use of force against them in order to help you get what you want.
"It's the implicit contract of the group."
No metaphors allowed when it comes to this, Adam: show me this "contract". You're trying to get away with all the benefits of that concept despite the fact that there is no such thing extant. You don't have a contract with me, and that's why you cannot claim my property on this premise.
"Unless you have personally killed or defrayed every person who has ever tried to collect taxes from you and removed entirely yourself from the benefit of tax-supported programs (be them social or military), you are compromising your principles."
That's not true. (For one obvious thing, I'd have to kill you, too, over this "contract" nonsense: it's true that you don't do the dirty-work yourself -- you just hire others to do it for you.) The logic of your position is that slaves deserve their lot whether or not they have the power to do anything about it. Submission to power is not complicity or compromise. Get this straight: a permission to live granted from another human being is not a value to me and I would not trade anything that's mine for it. A "compromise" necessarily implies an exchange of values, and there simply isn't one in this case.
"Aside from ranting and acting like a megalomaniac toward anyone who does not immediately concede to your points, what have you done to actually *stand* for those principles?"
Do you really want to know?
I've done the best I knew how during a whole lifetime of just trying to make a living at something I love. I never wanted to get involved in any of this -- even though I did at an early age because I could see it all coming, even before I knew what I wanted to do with my life, just trying to live it.
I stopped sending to the federal government a piece of my action in 1977. From then until now, I haven't accounted to them for my existence according to their yearly demands, and in 1991 (I think), I told an IRS agent face to face that he wasn't going to see one single dime from me and that he should just do his worst.
I have lived my whole working life expecting arrest at any moment, every day. That's thirty-one years, now.
I have wrecked a fairly promising career -- in something that I'm very good at and love dearly -- with my politics, because freedom is so dear to me that I threw everything on the line except the last-ditch of crawling into some backwoods hole from which you wouldn't have to put up with the likes of me, for lack of electricity.
And should I now do that in order to satisfy you?
Not today, kid. Not today. I've done everything as right as I've known how, quite likely for as long as you've been on the planet. And having been through all that, I think I'm going to stick around to watch this thing fall apart on your little pointy head.
"Keep flying the airplane as far into the crash as you possibly can." (Bob Hoover)
You guys go vote, okay? I'll be here to point out the facts and what they mean for at least another Four Years.
This is one of those days where I've had to cool off, step back and take another look at what's going on, because I'm not sure if we're even saying the sames things to each other.
You've gone completely ape, in an over the top, disproportionate way that most people don't do unless they feel they've been personally and directly insulted.
Though I write in a style that some might deem harshly pedantic, directly and personally insulting you wasn't my intention.
What was my intention was to express a beef with what I take your position to be, and to point out that there may be a framework in which your position (such that I take it to be, correctly or incorrectly...that is a separate matter..) has some logical consequences, and therefore it may not carry with it the unassailable moral perfection that I think you think it has, and therefore it may be hasty to concede the point of moral high ground.
A lot of things are possible. I could have misunderstood, and consequently mischaracterized your position.
Some of that beef with that position may have unfairly splashed on you. Perhaps the splashing is more than I thought possible at the time, and perhaps that splashing is less than you're reacting to.
At this point, I'm frankly shaking my head, uncertain whether any sort of discourse with you is even possible at this point.
I am, however, willing to tentatively suspend the rancor.
Geek: (Billy, y)ou've gone completely ape, in an over the top, disproportionate way that most people don't do unless they feel they've been personally and directly insulted.
Would it be possible for you to refrain from being pleased with the sound of your own typing just long enough for you to read what Beck wrote?
Personally and directly insulting him is exactly what you did do.
>>Personally and directly insulting him is exactly what you did do.
Really? In the initial post? Before the name calling?
I'm willing to consider that possibility. I know that sometimes I come off very badly, sounding pompous.
.
.
.
I...
Shit.
I'm sorry.
Billy Beck:
I contritely apologize for being a pompous ass.
While I disagree with you on some topics, I see now how snidely cutting my remarks were, I now see how they imply things that aren't merited, and I publicly proclaim that you didn't deserve that.
Please forgive me.
Mike: The resonance of your comment on being pleased with the sound of my own typing is what opened my eyes. Billy Beck is a real human being, and it's easy to lose site of that in the clatter of the keys and pursuit of prying open some point of logic.
"...directly and personally insulting you wasn't my intention."
Before I read another word: be goddamned careful in what you say, sir. I take you at your words.
"What was my intention was to express a beef with..."
Be quiet. What you did was ascribe to me things that I did not say and do not hold as my own convictions. There was no "interpretation" about it. You said that I said these things.
For years now, I've taken you seriously out there around the campus. I think I've even let you know this a couple of times. But that's coming to a goddamned screeching halt if this is what it comes to with you.
And in your presumption, you've let me know quite a lot about what you actually know about what I think, and the least what I would say is that you would do better to know what you oppose than to make it up as you go along.
Get this much straight: I am not disposed to bear lectures on morality from people who sneer about "ideological purity".
To you and everybody else:
I know exactly what I'm doing every single step of the way through all of this. Like I said: I've been at it a long time, I'm better at it than you, and it doesn't matter whether you appreciate these facts. Now; you people can act like assholes and lose your shit every time someone gets angry, just like all the commie po-mo retards do because they simply cannot conceive of a righteous anger founded in reason and everybody has to wear big pretty smilies all day long. I don't know about you, but I have reasons for everything I do, including what some of you like to call "childish". To them and all like them, I offer a hearty fuck you, with grown-up reason aforethought and knowing exactly what I'm doing. And you can piss and moan about my style or think about what I have to say and see if I care.
Long experience has taught me that worthwhile minds can and do sort it out.
I know exactly what I'm doing every single step of the way through all of this.
Yes, and you're surrounded by literally a couple hundred million people who don't. Me among them. Some of us are doing the best we can. Most don't give a flying fuck.
Like I said: I've been at it a long time, I'm better at it than you,
And you never let an opportunity pass to remind us! ;)
...and it doesn't matter whether you appreciate these facts.
Apparently it does!
Now; you people can act like assholes and lose your shit every time someone gets angry, just like all the commie po-mo retards do because they simply cannot conceive of a righteous anger founded in reason and everybody has to wear big pretty smilies all day long.
But you aren't talking to "commie po-mo retards" here. Righteous anger is one thing. Going from calm to red-faced throbbing-forehead-vein anger and expletive doesn't make one think of calm, cool, REASON.
I don't know about you, but I have reasons for everything I do, including what some of you like to call "childish".
See point #1, this comment.
To them and all like them, I offer a hearty fuck you, with grown-up reason aforethought and knowing exactly what I'm doing.
Right back atcha, Chief. Nothing like a little constructive discussion!
And you can piss and moan about my style or think about what I have to say and see if I care.
Sorry, sometimes your words obscure what it is you're trying to say. Generally when you're severely pissed off.
Long experience has taught me that worthwhile minds can and do sort it out.
...about the snivelers, Kevin. When it comes to them, they don't count except as demonstrations of applied epistemology, and the ones I do care about are the ones who can see it for what it is and what it means.
Well, Billy Beck, now that the dust has settled a bit, I have a question or three for you. Here is the context for it:
Kevin wrote: "Ideological purity is a marvelous thing, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy."
I agreed, and responded: "That is the whole of my approach to life in a single sentence."
I understood Kevin's statement as an observation, to wit, that ideologies are often laid aside when people suffer the consequences of applying them, particularly when the cost is more than they are willing to pay and the effects were not foreseen by them. I think that observation is true.
I, on the other hand, try to live in accord with my ideologies, which I don't expect to abandon in the face of the enemy. In part, they are about just such potential events. I confess that I don't practice this to the apparent extent that you do, but then I doubt many people do.
The questions I have for you are, what conclusion did you jump to about what I meant, why do you think that makes me "another fool", and if this was more than just a grenade tossed out in passing, why didn't you ask me what I meant before responding?
I've never conversed with someone of your, ahem, intensity before. I'm curious as to what you thought and why you thought it.
I just want to interject here and say that there are now 78 comments in this thread and I didn't post anything so...really...it has nothing to do with me whatsoever.
DJ: "I understood Kevin's statement as an observation,..."
I can't imagine how.
A "context" is the sum of cognitive elements that conditions the acquisition, validity, or application of any item of human knowledge. It's everything we know about what to think of something, and why. When I read what he wrote about principles and "first contact", I see well over a century of Pragmatism in action at things like confusing elements of nature with human volition ("IT HAPPENS!") and abandoning the very idea of principles. And: I've been through enough of this with him before, and watched a lot more along the way, to know what I'm talking about.
And when I'd read what you wrote in unconditional endorsement, I easily and naturally concluded that you agreed with all that.
I will, of course, rely on your correction if I was wrong about that.
What I agreed with was what I took to be a simple observation about human nature. I recall a statement made by the professor who taught the ethics course I took at university. I'm paraphrasing, because I don't recall it exactly, but he offered a warning: "Someday you may have to live according to your beliefs, so be careful what you decide to believe."
I took Kevin's statement is an observation that people often don't heed that warning. I agree with Kevin's observation and I try to heed the warning.
The warning that I often don't heed, and equally often regret, is that given by Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." I made it simpler, and that made it vague. Mea culpa.
"Someday you may have to live according to your beliefs, so be careful what you decide to believe."
I could have technical quibbles. For instance, "belief" is always suspect to me in popular connotation for a complex of reasons but mainly because of its cognitive decrepitude: something sort-of acting in the place of conviction but without doing the work that conviction requires. When I use that word (which is fairly rarely) it's almost always something like a plea for mercy if what I'd said I could be right, wasn't. The way it plays in that quote is, to me, only a bit idiosyncratic because of the conditioner, "decide". To me, a decision necessarily implies conviction, and that's different from "belief".
Generally, though, in its obvious colloquial spirit, I think that's pretty good advice. Essentially, it calls for rational consideration of the principal fact that principles matter, and that's why they should be taken seriously and explicitly in mind.
These days, far too many people even consider that such a thing is possible, nevermind why and how to do it.
~~~~~
More generally and urgently: I would point out that they vote, these people who can (some of them) speak and write English words and even sometimes sentences and paragraphs. They're dealing in your rights when they do.
In rereading this thread for what I hope is the final time, I believe I need to straighten up one last bit.
Q:
----
What you did was ascribe to me things that I did not say and do not hold as my own convictions. There was no "interpretation" about it. You said that I said these things."
Billy Beck
----
Earlier in the thread, I carelessly used the word "stated", and then proceeded to describe what I at the time took Mr. Beck's position to be.
Whether that characterization was reasonable or not under the circumstances isn't the point.
What is the point is that I see now that my careless formulation of words had the effect putting those words into Mr. Beck's mouth. It was not my intention to misrepresent Mr. Beck, and it's perfectly reasonable for Mr. Beck to object. In light of that, it wouldn't be right for me to let the statement stand.
Accordingly, in case anyone was wondering, I therefore withdraw the statement, and extend the previous apology to include this aspect of the matter.
I can sometimes be a pompous ass. I can also sometimes be a careless user of words.
"Ideology notwithstanding, you're acting like an asshole."
"Another staggering idiot standing in the cage of reality screaming, 'There are no bars!'"
"Feel free to keep putting your intense assholery on display for all to see, and know that you're massively outclassed and unable to hold your own in polite, reasoned discourse."
"I could have technical quibbles. For instance, "belief" is always suspect to me in popular connotation for a complex of reasons but mainly because of its cognitive decrepitude: something sort-of acting in the place of conviction but without doing the work that conviction requires."
I agree. What comes to mind when I think of it is the "ideological purity" of Neville Chamberlain, who refused even to discuss that appeasement doesn't work and that appeasement of Hitler wasn't working. Then, quite suddenly, he realized that it didn't work, that Hitler was his enemy, and his gubmint declared war on Germany.
"These days, far too [few] people even consider that such a thing is possible, nevermind why and how to do it."
Yup. Witness those in gubmint today who do not heed the warning exemplified by Neville Chamberlain. Those who don't learn from history ...
"Witness those in gubmint today who do not heed the warning exemplified by Neville Chamberlain. Those who don't learn from history ..."
Let's remember, though, that there is a difference between talking and appeasement...something the right seems to have trouble separating. We spent years in talks with Russia, under Reagan and Bush 41, and...the Soviet Union collapsed.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Let's remember, though, that there is a difference between talking and appeasement...something the right seems to have trouble separating. We spent years in talks with Russia, under Reagan and Bush 41, and...the Soviet Union collapsed.
I seem to recall an event at Reykjavik, Iceland where Reagan didn't talk to Gorbachev. And I also recall a little project nicknamed "StarWars" that contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. That wasn't "talking."
Talk is fine, but it helps if you have something to back it up.
"Talk is fine, but it helps if you have something to back it up."
I agree. And I think we need to define "them."
If "them" is Al Qaeda, then there is no talking, although I do think, from an intelligence standpoint, we need to know more about their thought process, as Sun Tzu would.
If "them" is Iran, I happen to agree with...every single Sec of State for the last 40 years...that we must engage them in high level talks rather than pouting like a six year old and playing the role they desperately want us to play.
There is no appeasement in talking to someone and I think that, through these talks, we can expose them for the buffoons they are and get back to looking like the adults and great country that we are.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/quote-of-day_17.html (92 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I guess it depends on if you're a "no taxation whatsoever" type of libertarian or "limited taxation" one.
Then again, it's one of those titles and classifications for political and economic views that's extremely widespread and widely (arguably incorrectly) used. Which is fine.
I believe in representable taxation. That is, taxation that makes sense to the action it purports to tax.
You can probably tie land taxes to land value and eminent domain. People choose what the land is worth to them, and they're taxed on that (or, y'know, by something sane like the market). There are lots of issues here with how often they can change it and so forth, of course.
Land taxation can be argued to be your payment on land owned by government, or at least protected by it. Fine.
Income taxes? Not unless government protects your "right" to work.
Sales taxes? Not unless government protects your "right" to buy or sell.
And so on.
Granted, you can argue one way or the other for any tax and how its justifiable to what it does, but that sounds like more mental effort than I care to exert at 9am.
So you have a limited set of taxation, and limited applications thereof. Defense and emergencies.
Or whatever. Clearly I haven't thought it out.
Anyone who outright opposes all taxation usually strikes me as a lunatic, however.
If you want a clearer understanding of the term "public health", I highly recommend reading Laurie Garrett's books, beginning with Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, continuing with The Coming Plague, and finally Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC. Her work is extremely readable and, at times, spellbinding. The Coming Plague won a Pulitzer Prize.
Wonderful. More books to queue up.
There's a different word for "no taxation whatsoever" libertarians.
They're called anarchists.
I'm not sure how he could have NOT come across at least one Libertarian that could explain such things.
Libertarians don't want to eliminate government(but anarchists do). They see a need for some government, just very limited, like police and courts. Laws against murder, assault, robbery, rape, burglary, etc are fine. They just don't believe in having a large, aggressive government.
So let me answer his questions:
"How do we provide for the national defense?"
Like we do now for the most part. No standing army (the Founders hated that idea for a reason). A Navy is fine, as is organized state-based Militias. No overseas bases. We do not need to be in other countries business- it only leads to more wars for us. Having a strong Air Force would also be necessary, as is Border Patrol and
Coast Guard.
Really, not that much would be different now- except we wouldn't be starting wars because we couldn't- but we could defend ourselves just fine.
"How do we defend against domestic enemies, to include criminals?"
Again, the same way now. I don't see how this is even a question. Courts and police to stop criminals, with a well-armed populace to help out. Given that there would be a fair number of Militia members around, that would help in emergencies (like a Hurricane).
"And what about public health? By which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine. "
This one is a little tougher, but maybe I don't understand the question. Does he mean forcing vaccines, or stopping the spread of outbreaks?
Obviously, the former is not allowed from a libertarian viewpoint. The latter could be, in this way. If an area did have an outbreak of a potent virus, the government could conceivable stop people from leaving until they have been tested to not have the virus. Because by leaving, they would forcibly infect another person- which would kill them. That could be a form of aggression, whether they intended it or not.
But there is a slipperily slope there of course. Governments have not been good at that kind of power. It could be easily abused.
That last one is certainly a tough question.
Um... Matt, I understand the sentiments of not wanting a standing army, but I disagree there.
A standing army ensures an ongoing and trained army. If the United States is attacked, we don't have to wait a month of delay to train men up. They're there, they're ready.
Please tell me how having bases in other countries leads us to more wars.
Watch on the Rhine was pretty good, but I would STRONGLY recommend (mostly, sans the Paladin of Shadows series) everything else the main author of the book, John Ringo, wrote....and most of it is free online.
Otter:
OH JOHN RINGO NO!
I really haven't enjoyed Kratman as an author. I believe his first novel was State of Disobendience, a VERY thinly veiled version of his view of history if Hillary had won the White House. While I thought Watch on the Rhine was ok, Yellow Eyes was just horrible for me.
Matt,
In fact, forcible vaccinations could very well be consistent with a libertarian viewpoint, as explicated by Robert Nozick.
If you do not get a vaccine, you are imposing a public bad on everyone around you, in the form of increased risk of infection. Thus, you would be forced to compensate your neighbors for the risk you are forcing them to take. Or, you could just get the vaccine.
The rub, which applies more generally to this kind of a compensatory scheme, is: who is determining how much the compensation should be? Nozick does not adequately answer.
I believe his first novel was State of Disobendience, a VERY thinly veiled version of his view of history if Hillary had won the White House.
Actually, during one part of the interview Kratman states that Hillary was not the model for that book. He said (I paraphrase) that he thought Hillary, while bad, wouldn't be that bad. His model was someone along the lines of Nancy Pelosi.
Otter: Also per the interview, Ringo wrote the outline for Watch on the Rhine, and Kratman wrote the actual story.
And yes, "Oh John Ringo, No!" That is the funniest review I have ever read in my life, and I agree with every word of it.
And I still read every book in the "Ghost" series. I winced a lot, but I still read 'em.
Kevin:
That is the funniest review I have ever read in my life, and I agree with every word of it.
And you noted that Ringo did too, in the comments?
(Kratzman also shows up in there.)
Micheal Z. Williamson wrote a couple excellent books. Freehold and The Weapon tell the story of a libertarian star nation (one of their ships is named the Robert A Heinlein.) which is attacked by the UN controlled, thoroughly socialist Earth circa 2500. Very good stuff, I highly recommend it.
Libertarians don't believe in polio vaccines, or TB, or even rubella?? Not gonna survive in the real world very long or in condition to reproduce well.
And you noted that Ringo did too, in the comments?
(Kratzman also shows up in there.)
And Michael Z. Williamson!
I think I have to buy a "OH JOHN RINGO NO!" T-shirt.
Turn the question around:
"List three things that are more important than your freedom and liberty."
Well, he's nailed some of the issues that divide minarchists from anarcho-capitalists. I don't yet have good, concise answers to give on those. I do think they're solvable problems; Hans Herman Hoppe has some ideas on how things would work in a stateless society, but what I've read of him deals with theory, and not how to get there from here.
A truly libertarian society would not have our current anti-discrimination laws. You can easily see a situation where private employers, schools and other associations just refuse to deal with people who don't have vaccinations. That kind of thing rubs us wrong unless its the government mandating it, but that doesn't mean it can't work.
Defense against criminals I think is solved in principle, through a combination of local elected law enforcement, private security companies, self defense, posses when necessary and insurance.
Defense against foreign enemies is the big challenge, the ultimate free rider problem. You might need a militia culture to pull it off. There are also glimmerings that an armed force could be funded by big private insurance companies, by building it into property insurance. Again, what's lacking is more of an idea of how to get there from here.
Having typed all that, now I'm not sure I should grant the premise. There's no organized libertarian movement to sell the federal courts to insurance companies or make the marine corps an employee-owned corporation. What libertarians largely agree on is lower taxes and lower spending on Constitutionally enumerated powers.
"Wonderful. More books to queue up."
Yup. Great, isn't it?
On foreign defense again, remembering the liberal bumper sticker on school funding and bake sales for bombers... why the heck not? American civilians shoot 9 billion rounds of ammunition in a year, I believe. We've got an active private aviation field. We've still got machine gun shoots even after the arbitrary and punitive laws and expenses imposed. We've got collectors who buy and restore military vehicles. Put all those trends together in a truly free society, one with truly minimal taxes but legal peer pressure, and even allowing for free riders its possible you could equip a military just with geeks, hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers.
Damn, Saladman beat me to my comment.
Those three questions are why I dintify myself as a muscular minarchist, not specifically as libertarian (or Libertarian).
As to what that is, I pretty much laid it out here:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/politics-of-liberty.html
You can easily see a situation where private employers, schools and other associations just refuse to deal with people who don't have vaccinations.
Really? How do you identify them?
"List three things that are more important than your freedom and liberty."
I think those three questions specifically address ones freedom and liberty. Pardon me if I don't grasp your subtlety.
Put all those trends together in a truly free society, one with truly minimal taxes but legal peer pressure, and even allowing for free riders its possible you could equip a military just with geeks, hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers.
Honestly, ask yourself how long such a force could stand up to an integrated, trained and equipped force like our current military with its logistics backing?
Not thirty days. Probably not more than thirty hours.
This is why nations exist: Coercion WORKS.
I see something missing from that list. "How do we protect environmental quality?" I'm not talking about saving spotted owls, I'm talking about preserving air and water quality adequate to, again, public health (and preservation of necessary resources). There is no way that I've ever heard proposed to give a free-market solution adequate for preserving the water quality and capability of an aquifer, and not all diseases can be vaccinated for- cholera and typhus you have to prevent by keeping your public water clean. London used to have smog-fogs that were literally lethal- how do we prevent those without imposing regulations on businesses?
As for refusing to deal with people who are unvaccinated, how in hell are we going to do that? Smallpox vaccines are the only kind that ever left a visible scar or other identifier. Word of mouth? What happens if people just, y'know, move?
As for private security and posses and purely elected local law enforcement... can anyone explain to me what mechanism will prevent this system from becoming indistinguishable from feudalism without the heritable caste system? If all force is for hire, what's to stop the formation of organized thuggery and warlords, such as the actual governments of many countries effectively are? Even if you take away the government, that sounds like the system Somalia has now, which I've never found appealing.
LabRat, my philosophy with pollution and such has always been "buy it." If you want to keep a water supply clean, you buy it. If you own one section of river and someone dumps upriver, sue them. Seems to me that's the whole point of a litigation system. Call it property damage.
As for the third point... hm. Actually, sometimes I have to wonder if it's been purely the culture of the United States that's managed to keep a balance of power and kept our police forces relatively neutral. I have to honestly wonder if it just comes down to the sheer initial size of our legislature.
Adam- That strikes me as a truly effective method of... tying up the court system in truly epic litigation while the river gets dirtier and dirtier.
And also does not address the question of what you do if the person or entity owning a majority or the source of a water supply simply does not care.
That seems to me to indicate a problem with a court system. Isn't the alternative tying up legislation while it gets done?
I'm confused as to how it doesn't handle the latter. If they don't care, and they are causing property damage to others' land, water, or air (granted, that'd be an interesting deed to handle), it's still handled through litigation against that person.
The current method simply makes use of the legislative rather than civil judicial branch.
In that case, let me reframe the question.
Especially if your social goal is reducing government regulation to an absolute minimum, what makes you think that suing people will be not only less common, but less frivolous than it is now, so as to make lawsuits a swift and effective measure of redressing grievance? As it stands, the court system (and I should know, as I am currently dealing with it) is glacially slow- in large part because it is seriously overburdened by bullshit.
For that matter, in a society where there is no such thing as agreed standards of pollutants, how do you prove somebody else is polluting to the point where some sort of social redress is merited? Remember, we're trying to take the use of force down to a minimum-possible.
In situations like aquifers, which soak up water from all over a massive area, how do you even prove who's polluting- and how do you parcel out ownership of an aquifer?
Valid questions, yes, but these questions also must be answered by any government entity, particularly when it's evaluating if someone is actively causing pollution.
How does an environmental agency agree on pollutants? How does it prove the very same things?
I just don't really see how arbitration through law is any different than arbitration through precedent here.
Granted, when I approach something like this, I make a lot of assumptions. I assume steps have been taken to reduce frivolous lawsuits (loser pays, removal of license to practice for X interval from any law firm which has Y number of cases thrown out in Z interval for frivolity, etc).
Aside from a slow court system, what problems does litigation face uniquely that an environmental agency doesn't?
If you do not get a vaccine, you are imposing a public bad on everyone around you, in the form of increased risk of infection. Thus, you would be forced to compensate your neighbors for the risk you are forcing them to take. Or, you could just get the vaccine.
Mastiff: How does that work, exactly? I mean, aren't people who are not-vaccinated only a threat to other people who aren't vaccinated? I mean, if I'm immune to a disease that you're not vaccinated for, and you get it, how does this threaten me? Other than with uproarious laughter at the stupidity, of course.
Actually, sorry. I didn't entirely grasp your question.
Yes, I concede that a minimal government would handle civil cases even slower and probably more horrifically. Hence the reason I don't support minimal government for the sake of it being minimal.
For the environmental agency type question specifically, yes, I think this should be directly legislative or handled via litigation. Where I **** bricks is in the delegation of authority from legislation to regulatory agencies (FCC, FDA, etc).
Adam- I'll get back to you when I've thought more on your revised answer, but meanwhile...
perlhaqr- No vaccine is 100%. The whole concept of "herd immunity" is structured around the threshold at which the vaccine functionally is that way because exposure is so low; with a lot of unvaccinated people (or livestock, hence the phrase), some of the vaccinated will inevitably succumb as well, a bigger chunk the more unvaccinated there are.
perlhaqr,
If society goes to hell in a handbasket because 50% of the population dies, do you think that would pose increased threat to those who were vaccinated?
LabRat and Adam, the whole notion of suing instead of appealing to gubmint is a non sequitur.
Have you ever sued someone and won? Once you've won a judgement against the other guy, how do you collect it? A court order is not self-enforcing, and it does not authorize trespass. So, you take the court order to another part of the gubmint, the police, and the police enforce it for you.
Oversimplified, is it? Yeah, probably so. But I've been there and done that, and that's how I did it.
I like libertarianism, but it's fatal flaw, methinks, is that it depends on voluntary cooperation. All it takes to bring it to its knees is one asshole who just doesn't care, and all it takes to bring everyone to his knees with his head on a block is one such asshole with a lust for power.
Side note- proving vaccination is easy; you bring your medical record to whatever initiation proceeding you're doing and they check it. Don't like that? Well, nobody's forcing you to join.
I actually agree, DJ. One thing to note is that destruction of private property and the litigation to recover those damages against the destructor is already a function of our government, and a fairly long-standing one of most court systems with civil litigations (that is, to my knowledge, the main point of litigation).
The reason I prefer that issue go to the government THAT way, as opposed to through delegation or legislation (though the latter is certainly more preferable, as government delegations such as the FCC aren't very strongly bound in constitutional terms), is that it's still a relatively private contract, even if enforced by government.
Er... that doesn't make much sense. Litigation is sometimes frivolous and often slow, and, yes, you do often need to go to actual agents of government force to push them through, but it is still a system that only acts on a push/pull basis. Delegation and legislation are sort of a stamp-all approach - these laws apply to everyone, to all cases, regardless of actual damage, intent of damage, scope of damage, etc.
Also, I'd daresay legislation is much more open to abuse than lawsuit... but... that's a matter for large debate.
I'm still thinking, but I will note the two things that are coming to mind...
1)Isn't litigation ultimately dependent upon legislation? It's asking the government to enforce the law. Which raises the question of why require someone to hire a lawyer and bring suit in the first place before anything can possibly be done?
2)With systems like air, water, and soil, there is effectively no such thing as only polluting your own air and water. The way the systems are naturally tied together, pollutants always travel; this is why agricultural runoff from North Dakota (for starters) becomes a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Why go through the pretense of "that guy is damaging my property with his carelessness on his property" and add another layer of bureaucracy to the problem when the careless guy is automatically creating problems for everyone else?
Yes, litigation is based on legislation. Litigation is, effectively, the application of laws against individuals from individuals. That's fine and dandy. The advantage of litigation (and also it's potential downfall) is that it allows wider use of general laws.
For example, governments cannot (at least ours and what we so far seem to consider the best example one) enforce general laws for specific cases. Having a law against damaging the property of another does not necessarily include pollution. Having a law against damaging land values can often have too widespread uses or applications - my argument against HOA "your lawn must be cut or it lowers our land values" views has always been that they are too susceptible to extremes (if it's an all-white neighborhood in a racist area, does a black person moving in constitute a damage to property values? It certainly might lower the value to the current residents).
So the advantage there (and, again, the downfall) to litigation is it allows these general rules to be spread to include other aspects. You don't strictly need an entire government branch to monitor, regulate, and arbitrate what constitutes a pollution, in what quantities, at what fines, etc - you need only have a limited set of laws covering basic property damages, and allow people to use the civil court system to enforce those against each other.
The civil system also has chains of appeals and a fairly linear hierarchy for both determining precedent and for moving upward. Granted, our current system makes this simultaneously too costly to defend and too cheap to attack, but, as always, I'm assuming a blue sky.
Then again, any libertarian argument assumes a blue sky :)
As for #2, you can't make people care, not even through legislation. I guess I just lean toward the idea that I'd rather actually be causing damage to someone else who cares and that retribution rather than a general retribution against an incredibly (and inherently) bureaucratic agency that enforces laws and rules regardless of how many actual relevant parties care to press the point. It's sort of an, "It's illegal to spit on your own table" kind of approach. If you spit on my table, I go and get the policeman. If I spit on my table, I don't like the policeman coming after me because someone, somewhere else decided table spitting is generally bad.
Agencies like environmental ones create criminals for victimless crimes. If they do, indeed, have victims, then those victims can surely litigate just as well.
I argue that pretty much all of law and litigation is pretense - law is more about neutral, blind application and process than it is about strict efficiency.
I guess I just don't see too many cases where an entire agency or legislation has been necessary. In cases where we often see direct, congressional legislation, they're usually hitting a strawman, and hitting him hard.
I'd probably feel much different about the matter if the demonstrations of it I saw around me were strict legislation versus litigation, but instead I just see litigation versus agency. I have yet to see a government agency that merited its existence, particularly when you consider that their current application has thus far entirely negated the concepts of checks and balances and of the intended system of making laws.
Rather than amend the constitution, we appear to have just started creating agencies, delegating a blanket amount of power to them, and ignoring anything they do (bearing in mind they have the ability to levy fines, and send police if those fines aren't paid, which directly corresponds to the ability to send police) until someone goes through the damned trouble of suing.
Hm...but, yes... I'm going to have to think about this :)
"How do we provide for the national defense?"
Like we do now for the most part. No standing army (the Founders hated that idea for a reason). A Navy is fine, as is organized state-based Militias. No overseas bases. We do not need to be in other countries business- it only leads to more wars for us. Having a strong Air Force would also be necessary, as is Border Patrol and Coast Guard.
Bad news -
Constitutional the Air Force is part of the "Army" - that was cast with the separation of the Army Air Corps from the Army as a separate DoD Branch.
Correction
"Constitutional" == "Constitutionally,"
I'll have to read this thread later, when I have time. Mainly, though, I wanted to point out that the various stripes of anarcho-whateverists tend to lurk around the libertarian camps, hoping to find friends and allies from amongst the more extreme elements.
Viewed from a different perspective, it could be said that the anarcho-whateverists tend to use the libertarian brand as a stalking horse, which really poisons the well for folks who show better perspective and balance in the matter.
The result is that Age-of-Reason style liberty oriented minarchists are either chased out for reasons of ideological impurity, or leave on their own having found little of practical value in that particular memetic wasteland.
Get this, Kevin:
It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid.
No end can justify that means.
If you have a problem, then go solve it, but you'll have to do it without forcing my participation. In other words, you'll have to use reason to convince me to get involved.
Otherwise, we are simply at war.
Your call. You can have it your way.
Adam: you, sir, can go get fucked.
Get this, Billy:
Morality notwithstanding, IT HAPPENS.
The only thing left to us is to attempt to MINIMIZE IT, because - humans being what they are - YOU CANNOT PREVENT IT.
I've said it before, the philosophy is "Live Free or Die," and I don't see a lot of people opting for "Die."
Do you?
And "Live Free" ain't really an option.
So the object is to "Live as Free as Possible."
Ideological purity is a marvelous thing, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy.
Edited to add: As the saying goes, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest.
It may be, that in some theoretical philosophic perfect world that no right to compel one to perform one's duty to society truly exists. But it would also be true in that world that it would be just as immoral to partake of *any* benefit provided by that society.
Yes, it's true that one would have to take rather dramatic steps to avoid drawing any benefit from society whatsoever, but that is the only moral path such a paragon of moral virtue would have open to him.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You can bloody speak for yourself, Kevin.
"geek": "...immoral to partake of *any* benefit provided by that society..."
You are extremely confused, sonny. You have no idea on earth what "benefits" even are, and that's why you are morally incompetent to sit at this discussion. You have nothing to say to it. Do yourself a favor: be quiet and start taking notes.
While I'm at this, here's what this "geek" person wrote:
"Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest."
Cite that, you little bitch. You're saying that that's what I have "stated", and this is the part where you get to go dig it up with my name on it -- to include all your fucking bullshit about "whims" -- and bring it around for all the nice netters to see, or be known as a goddamned liar.
Do you understand?
You stepped your narrow ass in it, now fucking walk through it, creep.
Billy said --
"Cite that, you little bitch."
I'm pretty sure gwa45 was referring to this:
"It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them."
P.S. -- Ideology notwithstanding, you're acting like an asshole.
Wow. Another staggering idiot standing in the cage of reality screaming, "There are no bars!"
But this one adds "bitches" to the end. Because, y'know, it adds credibility.
>>Cite that, you little bitch.
Q:
------
It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid.
-Billy Beck
------
Billy Beck: You're either going to have to concede that you might owe some morally valid minimal, limited duty to your society and/or fellow men, or show how this statement of yours, and many others like it, is distinct from my characterization. Expect no one to be impressed with hand waving, smoke and mirrors.
Just because ZAP and other immunity-from-coercion theories are beautiful and internally consistent isn't enough to make them true. Nor is it enough that the theory is appealing enough that you want it to be true. Hell, I would like such theories to be true, but my critical mind demands a higher level of proof prior to acceptance.
As for your personal insults and other juvenile screechings, well, that's not something I'm willing to tolerate.
It's not my fault that you impaled yourself on a logical trap of your own construction.
Feel free to keep putting your intense assholery on display for all to see, and know that you're massively outclassed and unable to hold your own in polite, reasoned discourse.
No, I won't be sitting down, shutting up, and taking notes. You have nothing you can teach me, and you and I are done.
Begone.
LabRat:
"Isn't litigation ultimately dependent upon legislation? It's asking the government to enforce the law. Which raises the question of why require someone to hire a lawyer and bring suit in the first place before anything can possibly be done?"
Well, efficiency alone comes to mind.
For example, the law defines and prohibits fraud. But, how does the gubmint know that an instance of fraud has been committed so that enforcement action can be taken? Because someone complained about it. A civil suit, which begins with the filing of (literally) a complaint brings it to the gubmint's attention.
A trial then brings questions of fact before a jury and brings questions of law before a judge. Those who decide the issue weren't there, so the whole issue hinges on the credibility of both sides. Once the decision is made, then the gubmint can take action to enforce its prohibition.
In contrast to that, consider what the result would be if only the gubmint could detect fraud and so file a virtual complaint. It would be either mighty intrusive, or very ineffective, or both, wouldn't it?
Kevin:
Ideological purity is a marvelous thing, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy."
Standing ovation, sir.
That is the whole of my approach to life in a single sentence. I may frame it and put it on my study wall. Really.
Actually, I second that, DJ.
You need to put that on a t-shirt or bumper sticker or something, Kevin. I'd buy it.
Before we proceed, "geek", I will note for the record that your allegation last night was a lie. From this point on, nobody owes you shit because of what you are. Fuck you.
Now, then -- you say:
"You're either going to have to concede that you might owe some morally valid minimal, limited duty to your society and/or fellow men,..."
Why? Why should I? It's your assertion: you make it valid.
The only thing that I "owe" to any of you is to leave alone to the peaceful conduct of your private affairs. That's it. There is nothing unreasonable about this (the Revolutionaries would have understood this, even if you can't), and it's what you owe me, too.
"...and you and I are done."
That's what you think, sonny. Let me explain something to you: it's a big internet and there's a long time to tag your ass with this bullshit of yours. Believe me: we're just getting started. I've been at this a lot longer than you, I'm better at it than you, and I never forget. You could ask around: I'm still tagging assholes like you for their bullshit from over fifteen years ago. If you were an honest man, there would be no problem, but you're not, and I never let that go.
You should hope we're "done", we're not.
"DJ": "Standing ovation, sir."
Another fool.
Principles are how one prevails over an enemy, regardless of "first contact".
Yep. Keep standing out there thumping your chest and yelling about your principles.
You'll grow up eventually.
"Keep standing out there thumping your chest and yelling about your principles."
You can bet on that. Conversely, one might expect that a sensible man who holds none would keep his mouth shut about the whole subject. I have no reason to suspect that you're that smart.
OK, hold it right the fuck there.
Mr. Beck: While I have read what you've written with much interest over the last few years, I have done the same with the Geekwitha.45, and (sorry if this disappoints you) but I find the Geek to be more closely connected to, you know, reality than you are.
So let's get one thing straight:
This is my playground. I get to decide who plays here. And if you don't alter your attitude you will be disinvited.
You want to have a pissing match? Do it elsewhere. You are not entertaining in the least. You want to discuss things civilly, I have no problem with that, but stop throwing around gratuitous insults.
I note you don't allow comments at your blog. I can certainly understand why, if you can't control your Tourette's any better than that.
I swear, if this was the 1700's, you'd have been a Mountain Man because you are constitutionally incapable of Playing Well with Others.
StephanR: "I'm pretty sure gwa45 was referring to this:
'It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.'"
If that's true, then he's worse than I thought. Go read it again: that's not what he said that I said.
"P.S. -- Ideology notwithstanding, you're acting like an asshole."
Sez you. That motherfucker lied about me and I'm the "asshole"? If that's what you think, then you can go get fucked, too.
It doesn't matter whether you people like me, and I don't care about that. You might, however, bring the ordinary integrity of grown men to this thing, goddamn you. Facts matter, to people with brains in their heads. You can act like a bunch of high-school girls twittering in the corner if you want to, but nobody worthwhile is going to respect that.
"I find the Geek to be more closely connected to, you know, reality than you are."
Bullshit, Kevin. Is that why he lied about me?
"And if you don't alter your attitude you will be disinvited."
Do it. Do it right now.
Never, Kevin: I am never, ever going to take bullshit like that from anyone. And if it happens at your place, then it is indisputably your call what happens next within that context and here in that place, but this is all that means in the end: I'm going to have my say about that bastard's lie until it's cleaned up or you throw me out of here.
There are only those two ways.
Your move, sir.
"...because you are constitutionally incapable of Playing Well with Others."
That's not true and you don't know what you're talking about. What I will not stand for is an outrage like that person's. If he'd done it to you, I wouldn't stand for it, either.
No peace until this is dealt with.
Testing. Having a little trouble with Javacript.
"This is why nations exist: Coercion WORKS."
Why do you think every powerful Islamic nation is rushing to develop nukes? To blackmail America into becoming part of the Caliphate? Oh deary me, no. They know, as do you, that possessing those weapons suddenly makes worrying about navies and air forces and the rest of the rot obsolete. Try to conquer their territory, and they'll leave your homes in ash.
If America decided to have its ICBM's as its only military protection, and a couple of thousand guys to guard them, no nation on Earth could coerce it. Of course, then about 25% of the federal budget is spent on an unnecessary military and pork for the military-industrial tycoons desperate to persuade you they are still relevant.
Many Republicans are just like Democrats in their assumptions about who needs to pay for their ill-considered programs. All that's left is haggling over price- at least the Donks offer up things that might make life better for people. The morality of how they pay for it is quite a different story, however.
OK, Billy, here's the deal:
Both Stephen and the Geek interpreted your statement,
"It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them.
"Do you understand? There is no contingency on which you can stand that will make that morally valid."
the same way. The Geek went further to state:
"It's not my fault that you impaled yourself on a logical trap of your own construction."
IF you two are willing to discuss THAT TOPIC - the LOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF YOUR STATEMENT - like two adults, I'm all for it. I think it would be an interesting and useful discussion.
If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then I invite you to drop it in this forum. You want to take it up elsewhere, I have no say about that.
But if I have to choose between allowing him to comment here, or you to comment here, I choose HIM.
"It doesn't matter what your problems are: you never have the right to take my money in order to solve them."
VS.
"Kevin, I'd not be so quick to concede the morality of the position of a man who has stated that there are no circumstances under which he would acknowledge that even some slightest, most limited duty to his society and fellow men might theoretically exist beyond what he feels like capriciously rendering on any given day, according to his own whims and the outcome of the day's calculus of self interest."
Billy says that no one is taking his money without persuading him that such is a good cause. Geek says that all citizens of America have a duty to pay for society, and not doing so is "capriciously rendering" their money.
Now, personally, I think that "capriciously rendering" must be the new word for "voluntary." Moulitsas and the Kos Krowd seem to stress such terms in discussing why the rich don't pay their fair share in such terms, as well. All you're really doing is haggling over the price, now. Can't you just ask people to pay for things?
(There, that's how you start a discussion.) - Ed.
Libertarianism in effect existed in the 'Wild West' of the 19th century. The culture and the limited government faded away before WWI. I understand that Alaska is as close as it gets for libertarian living today. A problem is that the culture needed for libertarianism has to have a lot of elbow room. Any time human density goes up above a certain point, libertarian government gets changed out for something else.
Another problem is that in the cases that I am aware of where a libertarian culture existed, it has been protected and/or subsidized. The US Territories were a drain on the Treasury. Alaska costs the government five times the amount it gets back in taxes.
Libertarianism is still a more viable form of government than communism, but that isn't saying much.
"IF you two are willing to discuss THAT TOPIC.."
You know better than that, Kevin. I'll take up any or all of this in good faith, and you know it.
I will not peacebly tolerate that person without a name for having said what he did about me; I will not have you people making his excuses for him; I will not have another civil word with him until he makes clear in his own words just how wrong he was in all its specifics and implications, to the exact degree that he wrote them in the first place.
"...I invite you to drop it in this forum..."
I will when he cleans it up, Kevin. Until then, you can bloody have him, and you will always deserve him.
Read the last line of my previous remark again. I mean it, and it's still your move.
No, it's his, since you've stated your ideologically puritan position.
"...your ideologically puritan position."
Call it what you want, Kevin: nothing will conceal the fact that it's about facts and the truth.
If you have a problem with that, then make the most of it.
As LabRat (another anonyblogger puts it), Jesus Haploid Christ.
I will wait to hear from the Geek before I comment further on this topic.
I think the bit I find odd is that, while I don't necessarily disagree with the basic ideology that taking money for any reason whatsoever is immoral, that the only thing you can offer is "fuck you."
No rational comment, no argument. Yes, you have principles. Most of us do.
I do not believe in taxation of any form. However, I see one HELL of a benefit and being in on whatever group is providing that level of protection, because I can actually look out my window and observe the world. I can see that I do not personally own nor can I reasonably acquire the tools or arsenal to defend myself and my property in its entirety against every person or entity outside who might want to take it.
I see that benefit, and so I compromise my belief and I allow that taxation in order to be part of a particular group. It's the implicit contract of the group.
The difference is that once you acknowledge that you are on this planet, you have to realize that in order to actually exist, you have to compromise them in certain areas.
Unless you have personally killed or defrayed every person who has ever tried to collect taxes from you and removed entirely yourself from the benefit of tax-supported programs (be them social or military), you are compromising your principles.
Unless you are actively defending your own income, your own land, and your own freedoms, you are compromising them on some point or another.
I see quite a bit of this, "I draw my line in the sand, and this is where I stand, sword in hand" kind-of thinking. Aside from ranting and acting like a megalomaniac toward anyone who does not immediately concede to your points, what have you done to actually *stand* for those principles?
We're all actually quite willing to discuss and convince you to make concessions against or in line with your own principles.
Yet all you can do is come in, tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and then turn around, cross your arms, and say, "I have principles."
And you seriously wonder why we're sitting here with our jaws hanging at how ludicrously childish you act?
Adam, you need to read Billy's blog.
All of it.
"I think the bit I find odd is that, while I don't necessarily disagree with the basic ideology that taking money for any reason whatsoever is immoral, that the only thing you can offer is 'fuck you.'"
You find it odd because it's not true. I can do a hell of a lot better than that, but I never give it away. Watch this:
"...because I can actually look out my window and observe the world."
Now, look, you: I do that, too. Straight off the jump, I'm at least as good at it as you are, and it would serve you well to take your implicit assumption and its one-step-removed insinuations and put them away so you and I can be nice as we can be to each other.
Now, then:
"I can see that I do not personally own nor can I reasonably acquire the tools or arsenal to defend myself and my property in its entirety against every person or entity outside who might want to take it."
You can't assemble what it takes to put a Chevrolet together, either. What's your point?
"I see that benefit, and so I compromise my belief and I allow that taxation in order to be part of a particular group."
No. That's not what you're doing at all. You're buying what you want when you hand over your money for it, in your voluntary conviction of the value to be received, and failing to make the distinction of the cases of people who are not convinced of the value at dispute, and you're doing this in order to rationalize the use of force against them in order to help you get what you want.
"It's the implicit contract of the group."
No metaphors allowed when it comes to this, Adam: show me this "contract". You're trying to get away with all the benefits of that concept despite the fact that there is no such thing extant. You don't have a contract with me, and that's why you cannot claim my property on this premise.
"Unless you have personally killed or defrayed every person who has ever tried to collect taxes from you and removed entirely yourself from the benefit of tax-supported programs (be them social or military), you are compromising your principles."
That's not true. (For one obvious thing, I'd have to kill you, too, over this "contract" nonsense: it's true that you don't do the dirty-work yourself -- you just hire others to do it for you.) The logic of your position is that slaves deserve their lot whether or not they have the power to do anything about it. Submission to power is not complicity or compromise. Get this straight: a permission to live granted from another human being is not a value to me and I would not trade anything that's mine for it. A "compromise" necessarily implies an exchange of values, and there simply isn't one in this case.
"Aside from ranting and acting like a megalomaniac toward anyone who does not immediately concede to your points, what have you done to actually *stand* for those principles?"
Do you really want to know?
I've done the best I knew how during a whole lifetime of just trying to make a living at something I love. I never wanted to get involved in any of this -- even though I did at an early age because I could see it all coming, even before I knew what I wanted to do with my life, just trying to live it.
I stopped sending to the federal government a piece of my action in 1977. From then until now, I haven't accounted to them for my existence according to their yearly demands, and in 1991 (I think), I told an IRS agent face to face that he wasn't going to see one single dime from me and that he should just do his worst.
I have lived my whole working life expecting arrest at any moment, every day. That's thirty-one years, now.
I have wrecked a fairly promising career -- in something that I'm very good at and love dearly -- with my politics, because freedom is so dear to me that I threw everything on the line except the last-ditch of crawling into some backwoods hole from which you wouldn't have to put up with the likes of me, for lack of electricity.
And should I now do that in order to satisfy you?
Not today, kid. Not today. I've done everything as right as I've known how, quite likely for as long as you've been on the planet. And having been through all that, I think I'm going to stick around to watch this thing fall apart on your little pointy head.
"Keep flying the airplane as far into the crash as you possibly can." (Bob Hoover)
You guys go vote, okay? I'll be here to point out the facts and what they mean for at least another Four Years.
Billy Beck:
This is one of those days where I've had to cool off, step back and take another look at what's going on, because I'm not sure if we're even saying the sames things to each other.
You've gone completely ape, in an over the top, disproportionate way that most people don't do unless they feel they've been personally and directly insulted.
Though I write in a style that some might deem harshly pedantic, directly and personally insulting you wasn't my intention.
What was my intention was to express a beef with what I take your position to be, and to point out that there may be a framework in which your position (such that I take it to be, correctly or incorrectly...that is a separate matter..) has some logical consequences, and therefore it may not carry with it the unassailable moral perfection that I think you think it has, and therefore it may be hasty to concede the point of moral high ground.
A lot of things are possible. I could have misunderstood, and consequently mischaracterized your position.
Some of that beef with that position may have unfairly splashed on you. Perhaps the splashing is more than I thought possible at the time, and perhaps that splashing is less than you're reacting to.
At this point, I'm frankly shaking my head, uncertain whether any sort of discourse with you is even possible at this point.
I am, however, willing to tentatively suspend the rancor.
Hm...
Beck, in lieu of reading your response, and taking Kevin's advice to read through your blog, I have to conclude that, yes, I can go get fucked.
It probably doesn't mean a damn thing, but you have my apologies and a reader of your blog until you die or stop writing.
Geek: (Billy, y)ou've gone completely ape, in an over the top, disproportionate way that most people don't do unless they feel they've been personally and directly insulted.
Would it be possible for you to refrain from being pleased with the sound of your own typing just long enough for you to read what Beck wrote?
Personally and directly insulting him is exactly what you did do.
>>Personally and directly insulting him is exactly what you did do.
Really? In the initial post? Before the name calling?
I'm willing to consider that possibility. I know that sometimes I come off very badly, sounding pompous.
.
.
.
I...
Shit.
I'm sorry.
Billy Beck:
I contritely apologize for being a pompous ass.
While I disagree with you on some topics, I see now how snidely cutting my remarks were, I now see how they imply things that aren't merited, and I publicly proclaim that you didn't deserve that.
Please forgive me.
Mike: The resonance of your comment on being pleased with the sound of my own typing is what opened my eyes. Billy Beck is a real human being, and it's easy to lose site of that in the clatter of the keys and pursuit of prying open some point of logic.
"...directly and personally insulting you wasn't my intention."
Before I read another word: be goddamned careful in what you say, sir. I take you at your words.
"What was my intention was to express a beef with..."
Be quiet. What you did was ascribe to me things that I did not say and do not hold as my own convictions. There was no "interpretation" about it. You said that I said these things.
For years now, I've taken you seriously out there around the campus. I think I've even let you know this a couple of times. But that's coming to a goddamned screeching halt if this is what it comes to with you.
And in your presumption, you've let me know quite a lot about what you actually know about what I think, and the least what I would say is that you would do better to know what you oppose than to make it up as you go along.
Get this much straight: I am not disposed to bear lectures on morality from people who sneer about "ideological purity".
To you and everybody else:
I know exactly what I'm doing every single step of the way through all of this. Like I said: I've been at it a long time, I'm better at it than you, and it doesn't matter whether you appreciate these facts. Now; you people can act like assholes and lose your shit every time someone gets angry, just like all the commie po-mo retards do because they simply cannot conceive of a righteous anger founded in reason and everybody has to wear big pretty smilies all day long. I don't know about you, but I have reasons for everything I do, including what some of you like to call "childish". To them and all like them, I offer a hearty fuck you, with grown-up reason aforethought and knowing exactly what I'm doing. And you can piss and moan about my style or think about what I have to say and see if I care.
Long experience has taught me that worthwhile minds can and do sort it out.
"Please forgive me."
Done.
It's that simple, except for this:
It pains me. I never like to see anyone in that position because I know what it's like.
Carry on, sir.
Damn, I'm glad that's settled.
Now, some commentary of my own:
I know exactly what I'm doing every single step of the way through all of this.
Yes, and you're surrounded by literally a couple hundred million people who don't. Me among them. Some of us are doing the best we can. Most don't give a flying fuck.
Like I said: I've been at it a long time, I'm better at it than you,
And you never let an opportunity pass to remind us! ;)
...and it doesn't matter whether you appreciate these facts.
Apparently it does!
Now; you people can act like assholes and lose your shit every time someone gets angry, just like all the commie po-mo retards do because they simply cannot conceive of a righteous anger founded in reason and everybody has to wear big pretty smilies all day long.
But you aren't talking to "commie po-mo retards" here. Righteous anger is one thing. Going from calm to red-faced throbbing-forehead-vein anger and expletive doesn't make one think of calm, cool, REASON.
I don't know about you, but I have reasons for everything I do, including what some of you like to call "childish".
See point #1, this comment.
To them and all like them, I offer a hearty fuck you, with grown-up reason aforethought and knowing exactly what I'm doing.
Right back atcha, Chief. Nothing like a little constructive discussion!
And you can piss and moan about my style or think about what I have to say and see if I care.
Sorry, sometimes your words obscure what it is you're trying to say. Generally when you're severely pissed off.
Long experience has taught me that worthwhile minds can and do sort it out.
It damned near didn't happen here.
But you don't care. Got it.
Moving on . . .
"But you don't care."
...about the snivelers, Kevin. When it comes to them, they don't count except as demonstrations of applied epistemology, and the ones I do care about are the ones who can see it for what it is and what it means.
"sometimes your words obscure what it is you're trying to say."
In this case, it says more about you than about the words.
Few people ever once manage the signal to noise ratio that Billy hits as a matter of routine, including on this page.
Well, Billy Beck, now that the dust has settled a bit, I have a question or three for you. Here is the context for it:
Kevin wrote: "Ideological purity is a marvelous thing, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy."
I agreed, and responded: "That is the whole of my approach to life in a single sentence."
I understood Kevin's statement as an observation, to wit, that ideologies are often laid aside when people suffer the consequences of applying them, particularly when the cost is more than they are willing to pay and the effects were not foreseen by them. I think that observation is true.
I, on the other hand, try to live in accord with my ideologies, which I don't expect to abandon in the face of the enemy. In part, they are about just such potential events. I confess that I don't practice this to the apparent extent that you do, but then I doubt many people do.
The questions I have for you are, what conclusion did you jump to about what I meant, why do you think that makes me "another fool", and if this was more than just a grenade tossed out in passing, why didn't you ask me what I meant before responding?
I've never conversed with someone of your, ahem, intensity before. I'm curious as to what you thought and why you thought it.
I just want to interject here and say that there are now 78 comments in this thread and I didn't post anything so...really...it has nothing to do with me whatsoever.
DJ: "I understood Kevin's statement as an observation,..."
I can't imagine how.
A "context" is the sum of cognitive elements that conditions the acquisition, validity, or application of any item of human knowledge. It's everything we know about what to think of something, and why. When I read what he wrote about principles and "first contact", I see well over a century of Pragmatism in action at things like confusing elements of nature with human volition ("IT HAPPENS!") and abandoning the very idea of principles. And: I've been through enough of this with him before, and watched a lot more along the way, to know what I'm talking about.
And when I'd read what you wrote in unconditional endorsement, I easily and naturally concluded that you agreed with all that.
I will, of course, rely on your correction if I was wrong about that.
What I agreed with was what I took to be a simple observation about human nature. I recall a statement made by the professor who taught the ethics course I took at university. I'm paraphrasing, because I don't recall it exactly, but he offered a warning: "Someday you may have to live according to your beliefs, so be careful what you decide to believe."
I took Kevin's statement is an observation that people often don't heed that warning. I agree with Kevin's observation and I try to heed the warning.
The warning that I often don't heed, and equally often regret, is that given by Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." I made it simpler, and that made it vague. Mea culpa.
"Someday you may have to live according to your beliefs, so be careful what you decide to believe."
I could have technical quibbles. For instance, "belief" is always suspect to me in popular connotation for a complex of reasons but mainly because of its cognitive decrepitude: something sort-of acting in the place of conviction but without doing the work that conviction requires. When I use that word (which is fairly rarely) it's almost always something like a plea for mercy if what I'd said I could be right, wasn't. The way it plays in that quote is, to me, only a bit idiosyncratic because of the conditioner, "decide". To me, a decision necessarily implies conviction, and that's different from "belief".
Generally, though, in its obvious colloquial spirit, I think that's pretty good advice. Essentially, it calls for rational consideration of the principal fact that principles matter, and that's why they should be taken seriously and explicitly in mind.
These days, far too many people even consider that such a thing is possible, nevermind why and how to do it.
~~~~~
More generally and urgently: I would point out that they vote, these people who can (some of them) speak and write English words and even sometimes sentences and paragraphs. They're dealing in your rights when they do.
In rereading this thread for what I hope is the final time, I believe I need to straighten up one last bit.
Q:
----
What you did was ascribe to me things that I did not say and do not hold as my own convictions. There was no "interpretation" about it. You said that I said these things."
Billy Beck
----
Earlier in the thread, I carelessly used the word "stated", and then proceeded to describe what I at the time took Mr. Beck's position to be.
Whether that characterization was reasonable or not under the circumstances isn't the point.
What is the point is that I see now that my careless formulation of words had the effect putting those words into Mr. Beck's mouth. It was not my intention to misrepresent Mr. Beck, and it's perfectly reasonable for Mr. Beck to object. In light of that, it wouldn't be right for me to let the statement stand.
Accordingly, in case anyone was wondering, I therefore withdraw the statement, and extend the previous apology to include this aspect of the matter.
I can sometimes be a pompous ass. I can also sometimes be a careless user of words.
What I am not, however, is a liar.
Very well, then. That's bloody important and requires the attention.
I re-read my remarks to DJ and see this: "...far too many people even consider..."
Of course, it's supposed to be "far too few".
That shit drives me crazy. It's completely mysterious how I did that, and I conclude that it wrecked that whole effort, dammit.
"Ideology notwithstanding, you're acting like an asshole."
"Another staggering idiot standing in the cage of reality screaming, 'There are no bars!'"
"Feel free to keep putting your intense assholery on display for all to see, and know that you're massively outclassed and unable to hold your own in polite, reasoned discourse."
Beck's Razor (http://tinyurl.com/4bmlqt) strikes again.
"I could have technical quibbles. For instance, "belief" is always suspect to me in popular connotation for a complex of reasons but mainly because of its cognitive decrepitude: something sort-of acting in the place of conviction but without doing the work that conviction requires."
I agree. What comes to mind when I think of it is the "ideological purity" of Neville Chamberlain, who refused even to discuss that appeasement doesn't work and that appeasement of Hitler wasn't working. Then, quite suddenly, he realized that it didn't work, that Hitler was his enemy, and his gubmint declared war on Germany.
"These days, far too [few] people even consider that such a thing is possible, nevermind why and how to do it."
Yup. Witness those in gubmint today who do not heed the warning exemplified by Neville Chamberlain. Those who don't learn from history ...
"Witness those in gubmint today who do not heed the warning exemplified by Neville Chamberlain. Those who don't learn from history ..."
Let's remember, though, that there is a difference between talking and appeasement...something the right seems to have trouble separating. We spent years in talks with Russia, under Reagan and Bush 41, and...the Soviet Union collapsed.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Mark, are you suggesting we talked them to death?
Seems to me we had the right policy if that is the case.
Adam, the name "Munich" comes to mind, doesn't it?
Let's remember, though, that there is a difference between talking and appeasement...something the right seems to have trouble separating. We spent years in talks with Russia, under Reagan and Bush 41, and...the Soviet Union collapsed.
I seem to recall an event at Reykjavik, Iceland where Reagan didn't talk to Gorbachev. And I also recall a little project nicknamed "StarWars" that contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. That wasn't "talking."
Talk is fine, but it helps if you have something to back it up.
"Talk is fine, but it helps if you have something to back it up."
I agree. And I think we need to define "them."
If "them" is Al Qaeda, then there is no talking, although I do think, from an intelligence standpoint, we need to know more about their thought process, as Sun Tzu would.
If "them" is Iran, I happen to agree with...every single Sec of State for the last 40 years...that we must engage them in high level talks rather than pouting like a six year old and playing the role they desperately want us to play.
There is no appeasement in talking to someone and I think that, through these talks, we can expose them for the buffoons they are and get back to looking like the adults and great country that we are.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>