American Marxism

[mickthinks]

... those three lines cover the whole schmear. ... Any laws or regs beyond them can only serve mercenary sons of bitches as they get a leg up ...

Your three rules don't cover cases of animal cruelty such as this unpleasant case Pet monkey offered cocaine and flushed down toilet | BBC.

Are you happy to leave animals' welfare unprotected by legislation, henry?

[henry quirk]

mick, are you a strict vegetarian?

unless you are: mebbe you ought not try to high road me

[mickthinks]

mick: Are you happy to leave animals' welfare unprotected by legislation
henry: ... mebbe you ought not try to high road me

Hmmm ... I guess that's a "yes".

[henry quirk]

mick: Are you happy to leave animals' welfare unprotected by legislation
henry: ... mebbe you ought not try to high road me

Hmmm ... I guess that's a "yes".

yeah, I guess it is, fellow meat eater

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

As a minarchist, I recognize the use of a minimal, local constabulary (to investigate claims of life, liberty, property violation) and a minimal, local court of last resort (to arbitrate and adjudicate), but regulators? Law makers? No, we don't need those.

Laws are founded on morality, and are nothing but codified morality that is mandatory.
Minimal local constabularies actually need laws so the constables know what actual life violations, liberty violations, and property violations have occurred.

Peoples' life experience includes the places where they learned their ideas. I was not being nosey when I asked you about the terrain of where you have been living perhaps all your life. Geographically very isolated habitats cause people to develop independence from others, because they have to.

[henry quirk]

Minimal local constabularies actually need laws so the constables know what actual life violations, liberty violations, and property violations have occurred.

no, they simply need arbiters to assess whether any claim of life, liberty, or property violation is -- in fact -- a violation

these...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...cover everything

murder, theft, rape, and any other violation of life, liberty, or property you can think of is prohibited

no one needs law makers: just investigators and arbiters

test it: come up with the most devious violation you can imagine, one you're certain isn't covered by the three lines and I'll show how what you've crafted either isn't a violation (like mick's lil the poor animals! deal) or is a violation that needs only a constabulary to investigate and an arbiter to arbitrate

go on: challenge me

[Belinda]

Minimal local constabularies actually need laws so the constables know what actual life violations, liberty violations, and property violations have occurred.

no, they simply need arbiters to assess whether any claim of life, liberty, or property violation is -- in fact -- a violation

these...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...cover everything

murder, theft, rape, and any other violation of life, liberty, or property you can think of is prohibited

no one needs law makers: just investigators and arbiters

test it: come up with the most devious violation you can imagine, one you're certain isn't covered by the three lines and I'll show how what you've crafted either isn't a violation (like mick's lil the poor animals! deal) or is a violation that needs only a constabulary to investigate and an arbiter to arbitrate

go on: challenge me

The scenario in High Noon, where the bad man was not controlled by wild west minimalist law so that unless one lone hero dealt with the bad man he would continue to be bad.

[henry quirk]

The scenario in High Noon, where the bad man was not controlled by wild west minimalist law so that unless one lone hero dealt with the bad man he would continue to be bad.

here's the plot: a town marshal whose sense of duty is tested when he must decide to either face a gang of killers alone, or leave town with his new wife.

you still wanna go with this one?

let's do...

the constable won't do his job: fire him

this isn't a moral issue: just an employment issue

the gang of killers -- scofflaws: the citizens shoot them dead (much as citizens ought to be shootin' mostly peaceful protesters who attempt to loot & burn out businesses today)

self-defense, defense of the other, defense of property: all permissible under the three lines

no law beyond A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property. is needed

an arbiter, after the fact, can decide if the citizens acted justly

[Belinda]

The scenario in High Noon, where the bad man was not controlled by wild west minimalist law so that unless one lone hero dealt with the bad man he would continue to be bad.

here's the plot: a town marshal whose sense of duty is tested when he must decide to either face a gang of killers alone, or leave town with his new wife.

you still wanna go with this one?

let's do...

the constable won't do his job: fire him

this isn't a moral issue: just an employment issue

the gang of killers -- scofflaws: the citizens shoot them dead (much as citizens ought to be shootin' mostly peaceful protesters who attempt to loot & burn out businesses today)

self-defense, defense of the other, defense of property: all permissible under the three lines

no law beyond A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property. is needed

an arbiter, after the fact, can decide if the citizens acted justly

But to have efficient conditions of employment you need laws and law enforcement.You can't depend on heroes alone.

[promethean75]

"Yeah, I thought so too. But man isn't rational, nor can he be. Man is reasonable: he reasons (and reason is not always a logical affair). He intuits and recognizes moral fact. anarcho? Absolutely. Man requires no law makers. nihilism? A dead end...literally."

One can mince words all they want, but there is no 'a posterior' or 'a priori' knowledge providing evidence that there is any purpose to life and the universe... nor any 'meaning' ascribable to either of these beyond what an individual wishes to believe. And what he believes is largely motivated, subconsciously perhaps, by what most comforts him.

As for 'intuiting' morality, I can't say that I do... but I'm not sure what you mean by 'intuit' (certainly not intuitive knowledge as spinoza defines it).

I observe and experience a great range of moral behaviors in all animals, but this is just a truism and explains nothing beyond the fact that animals behave morally.

I'd argue that most men do require law makers and would not do very well in life without such institutions in place.

I don't consider nihilism as a dead end. If anything, it is a profound liberation. But again, nihilism is just a set of basic philosophical propositions, and how one behaves is not necessarily a behavior that comes exclusively to nihilists. One can be a successful business owner, member of an orchestra, coach of a baseball team, avid sportsman, and a loving husband and father... all while being a nihilist.

And I count anyone who isn't a nihilist as merely a believer, not a philosopher or critical thinker.

Hence stuff like: "I don't believe, with good reason I think, the universe is amoral and Godless."

But this is not the irony of interest here (for me). The irony is that anyone would WANT to praise and worship a 'god' responsible for this earth and its affairs. And secondly, that a defender of capitalism - a system directly based on exploitation and property conflict - would have the nerve to look at the earth and claim that it wasn't amoral.

"The capitalist can be ugly (by definition, capitalism is about the capital), but Free Enterprisers? We're bee-u-tiful, scrupulous, and honest. If we're not: we starve or get shot."

Ah so you are a capitalist, then. It all makes sense now. You have 'god' to justify the state of the world and all its suffering due to capitalism (it's all part of his plan), and your misplaced rancour toward Marxism, which you grossly misunderstand... only that it puts your free capital in great danger. This is something that you certainly do know.

[henry quirk]

B

But to have efficient conditions of employment you need laws and law enforcement.You can't depend on heroes alone.

Tell me, how does...

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...not apply to employment or conditions of employment?

Tell me, what is there about the workplace that negates...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

...in any way?

As for heroes: you better be one cuz if you're not you're fodder.

[promethean75]

Here's whatcha gotta understand about the capitalism/Marxism war, Henry. We'll use an incredibly simplified analogy.

Say you have a business and two employees. These employees produce commodities everyday. You pay them less than the value of the commodities you sell on the market.

One day these two employees are on the assembly line and the thought occurs to one of em:

'hey Ralph, I have an idea. Well a theoretical idea, I mean. What would happen if we took this factory from Henry by force and managed it ourselves? What does Henry actually do here that we couldn't do ourselves?'

'good question, Jerry. I never thought about it before. He really doesn't do anything productive, and if anything, he makes it harder for us by paying us less money than we should be able to make from the sales of our products.'

'exactly! So what are we doing? Wouldn't it be logical to get rid of this middle-man?'

'yeah I dunno that's against the law, Jerry.'

'but Ralph, those laws were designed by the capitalists to protect their property. And if the vast majority of people are wage workers, we could quite literally rewrite these laws and the very constitution itself if we were so inclined.'

'jeez Jerry that's some pretty serious shit you're talking about. Revolutions and stuff. I dunno man... sounds kinda sketchy.'

'well it was just a thought. Break time, man. I'm going to the soda machine. You want a Pepsi?'

And with that, Ralph and Jerry surrendered before they even began, and back to the drudgery they went....

Okay so you see what happened here. Ralph and Jerry had a very strong point, and you'd be hard pressed to convince them, philosophically or not, that they SHOULDN'T want to do this... or that the world's working classes taken as a whole, should not want to organize themselves to do such a thing on a global scale.

There is no argument under the sun that would render their conclusion unreasonable or illogical... try as you might to find one. God, morality, teleology, epistemology... none of this can save you here.

[henry quirk]

Pro,

there is no 'a posterior' or 'a priori' knowledge providing evidence that there is any purpose to life and the universe... nor any 'meaning' ascribable to either of these beyond what an individual wishes to believe.

As I say to uwot elsewhere: That mind, free will, ownness, and conscience are real and have no source in the matter of man, that -- seems to me -- is a reason for others to mebbe consider they're more than a peculiar arrangement of materials and that Reality may not be a rudderless affair.


As for 'intuiting' morality, I can't say that I do...I'm not sure what you mean by 'intuit' (certainly not intuitive knowledge as spinoza defines it).

Best example is ownness: that intuition you belong to yourself. It's universal. No man craves the leash. Every man (even the slaver) believes he is his own. No one reasons this out: each and everyone simply knows it from the start.


I'd argue that most men do require law makers and would not do very well in life without such institutions in place.

Not law makers, just Law (see my conversation with B, up-thread).


I count anyone who isn't a nihilist as merely a believer, not a philosopher or critical thinker.



Yeah, I think I can live with your disapproval.


But this is not the irony of interest here (for me). The irony is that anyone would WANT to praise and worship a 'god' responsible for this earth and its affairs. And secondly, that a defender of capitalism - a system directly based on exploitation and property conflict - would have the nerve to look at the earth and claim that it wasn't amoral.

Two things...

I'm a deist, not a theist: I don't take a knee to any-one or -thing.

I'm not a capitalist, or defender of capitalism: I'm a free man who transacts with other free men in ways that preclude interference by The State. It's Free Enterprise.


Ah so you are a capitalist, then.

Nope.


You have 'god' to justify the state of the world and all its suffering due to capitalism (it's all part of his plan), and your misplaced rancour toward Marxism, which you grossly misunderstand... only that it puts your free capital in great danger. This is something that you certainly do know.

Nope.

[henry quirk]

"What would happen if we took this factory from Henry by force(?)"

Henry would shoot you for the thieves you are.

'nuff said

[promethean75]

"That mind, free will, ownness, conscience are real and have no source in the matter of man"

Holy Cartesian dualism, Henry, you been readin the wrong nonsense. It may be too late for you, bro. I don't wanna abandon you, but by god I might have to. Meanwhile, mess around with Peter Hacker's stuff and review wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box' experiment. It might change how and what you think about the 'mind'.

The 'owness' part is in the affirmative tho, and Stirner very much approves.

"I'm not a capitalist, or defender of capitalism: I'm a free man who transacts with other free men in ways that preclude interference by The State. It's Free Enterprise."

Oh good deal then. You had previously used the inclusory 'we' when speaking of capitalists. My bad.

Yeah me too. I'm a merchant who sells his products and services and has no employees.