>> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return?
..
> Yes, that's my point.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.
"Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point."
Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence.
'Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.'
This really couldn't be more handwavy. I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society. I also think it's clear that an ability to solve collective action problems is necessary and that massive concentration of power is a problem. My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex.
"A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people."
Again, your language is absurd. Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved - as normal people would use the word, not something you can technically force into place by ignoring important aspects of what people usually mean when they say enslavement - or gtfo.
A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check and that initiation of violence to a minimum, but monopoly is tremendously better than allowing competitive violence - monopolies under-produce.
"Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it."
How do they pick which arbiter to turn to, if they haven't had dealings with each other before? If it's always a certain arbiter in a certain area, that's just the existing court system.
> Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence.
I got it just fine. But even if the laptop weren't my property (by social convention or otherwise), demanding it back would not constitute extortion without a threat. Either way, I still don't see the point.
> This really couldn't be more handwavy
Sure, but I didn't mean to "prove" anything to you.
> I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do.
Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too.
> If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do.
Well that sure is fucked up.
> My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex.
Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway.
> Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved
If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape.
Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free.
> A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied.
Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied?
> We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check
The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no.
I'll give up now, at least for today. Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it.
"I got it just fine. But even if the laptop weren't my property (by social convention or otherwise), demanding it back would not constitute extortion without a threat. Either way, I still don't see the point."
If all you do is make the request, and there is no (explicit or implicit) threat that you'll take it by force or involve police or anything else, then yes it is not extortion for an additional reason. Would you really advocate that people simply let it go? If so, we're having a different conversation than I thought we were. It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion. Couldn't be simpler; an entirely relevant application of reason to the problem.
"Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too."
I'm familiar with the literature, including Rothbard. Many of the ideas are certainly fascinating, but I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism. There is an infinitude of internally consistent axiomatic systems, the only way to tell whether yours actually has any relation to the real world is to measure and compare (other stuff you've written here leads me to think you sympathetic to this viewpoint, so I don't know why you're so accepting of that stuff).
Nonetheless, as I say later (though you didn't quote it) "I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society."
'> If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do.
Well that sure is fucked up.'
Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.
I would say that clinging to the things you've arbitrarily blessed as rights when better outcomes are attainable is fucked up. Rights are not what I value first order. I value people living long and healthy lives and preferably happy lives, where they can find meaning in whatever ways they derive it.
That said, I'm speaking of principles here. In practice, I'm not eager to trade away most of the things various people have called "rights" - it would have to meet a high burden of proof that it's genuinely a good idea in the medium to long term. To my mind, asserting our rights helps provide security against government; collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check. But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere), but also so as to maximize the benefits government can provide where that does not cost us too much in the other respect.
'Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway.'
I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut. "I have a privileged viewpoint! Ignore the lies and listen to the prophets and you too can be enlightened!"
I don't see enough actual content there for a real response.
'If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape.
Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free.'
I think there are a huge number of aspects of slavery that are missing in our relationship with government. You can choose not to work (or earn less than the standard deduction) and not have to pay any taxes. You can, as you say, choose where you work. You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master. You're also not likely to be sold away from your family.
Having some aspects in common with slavery doesn't make it 50% slavery.
'Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied?'
Harry Brown covered this quite approachably in "Why Government Doesn't Work".
If I'm selling peaches, and someone comes along and says "this neighborhood is my peach selling turf; stop selling peaches or I'll shoot you", I can report it to the police. If I'm selling cocaine and someone says the same, and I tell the police, I don't get assistance. Likewise, if someone steals my peaches versus if someone steals my cocaine. Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs). You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.
"The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no."
Any technology can be misused, and government is no different. A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them. We've seen plenty of times the violence that can come about from too little government as well, and it can easily compete (in terms of percentage of the population) with the travesties you cite.
"Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it."
> It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion.
I pointed out that taxation meets the criteria for extortion: you're giving up your property under threat of violence. It's clearly a match.
You asked if me demanding my laptop back would constitute extortion, which we both know it doesn't. There are two reasons why not: 1) the laptop is my property (regardless of "how"), 2) there is no threat. This is why my original reaction was: "Oh come on".
But now you're saying the laptop was an example of something that meets the criteria of extortion without being extortion.. and that's just not true.
>>> I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do
>> Well that sure is fucked up.
> Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.
What you said is comparable to me declaring that I'll just shoot you in the kneecaps and take your money if I ever come across you, just because I want the money, so fuck you and fuck your well-being.
So that's perfectly alright if it results in a "good outcome", as defined by.. who? Me? -Obviously, you don't have a say because you're the one being robbed to achieve whatever good outcome I might have set my sights on.
Do you see why I talked about the end not justifying the means? Your way of thinking is like Stalin's or Mao's. They had lots of good outcomes in mind when slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people. In other words, your way of thinking is, in fact, fucked up.
Don't talk about good or better "outcomes", that's a misguided, mass-coercion-rationalizing attitude. You don't know "the correct outcome" for a society - there is no such thing, and above all, you can't arrange for it to happen through coercion.
What people could do, is follow the golden rule - do unto others as you'd have done to yourself. That way we'd actually reach the best possible "outcome" for everyone, which is something you'll understand if you accept Austrian economics.
.. speaking of which:
> I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism
Oh this again. Boo-hoo, it's not a "real science". Well so fucking what? Does people's behaviour work like mathematics, or.. is it perhaps, unpredictable?
Austrian economics is based on observations on how people actually behave, in reality. Since economies consist of millions of people making exchanges, that's the best possible basis for a school of economic thought. It doesn't take much to understand this once you stop insisting on clinging on to your preconceived notions of what economics should be like.
> collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check
Really now? How's that working out so far? Does it work in the burgeoning police state of the US? What about North-Korea? Did it work in Mao's China?
Please wake up. There is no way to keep a government in check - it wields absolute power over a geographical area, until the masses stop believing that someone else has the right to rule them, that is.
> But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere)
No, the only version of the idea of rights that works and is tenable, is one that is based on sound reasoning. If 100 people "collectively decide" that you don't have the right to own a spleen, I'm sure you'd agree that's not a particularly good way of defining rights. Sure, a spleen is an extreme example, but it could be anything really. Any collective decision where you're harmed without you harming anyone is obviously wrong. Taxation is not a collective decision, especially when neither of us was ever asked, nor were our parents. In fact, ordinary people have never been asked if they'd like to be extorted. That's kind of like, not how extortion works, after all.
> I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut.
> You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master
Being able to switch from Prison A to Prison B doesn't mean you're free though. Again, the most productive slave is one that thinks he's free, and that's why we're not outright slaves. Here's more on that: http://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/the_handbook_of_...
> Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs).
Government doesn't change that you know. If someone decides to rob you, a police officer won't materialize between you and him to prevent it. If someone wants to hurt you, he'll evaluate the risks vs the "reward", and make a decision based on that. Luckily, the vast majority of people won't hurt you with or without a government.
> You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.
Prohibition is something the government did. You're just helping my case by bringing it up.
> Any technology can be misused, and government is no different.
So now government is a "technology", as if it's something we, the people, "use" to our benefit? :P Nice going there.
> A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them
Well, now you're saying we need "better government", but that's like asking for "better enslavement". Once again, governments are. not. responsible. to. anyone. for. their. actions. Please let that sink in. Do you get that because there is no higher power than government, there is nothing to keep them in check? Do you get that because of that, there's nothing governments can't do to us individuals?
It takes a massive uprising to topple a government, and then it's always just replaced with another. Oh, and along the way, lots of innocent people are beaten, tased, killed, and tortured by the government, just like in the Ukraine or Venezuela these days. Wake up? The solution to a group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone is not to replace it with another. The only solution is for the masses to stop believing that they need to have a group of sociopaths rule over them. That belief is the belief in political authority.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.