Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:31 pmYou don't get to do with a man's life, liberty, and property as you like, no matter how noble the cause.

You can ask and tempt,...

**Well, democracy, I suppose, is a way of "asking." Or, if you like, of "tempting" people with policies.

And it's a little better than other alternatives, but far from an ideal solution, because the "ask" is fairly remote. In a group of 12, maybe your voice is fairly important. In a group of a million, not so much. But even to be asked a little is probably better than not being asked at all.

The one thing I do like about it is that **of all the available systems, it takes into account the corruptibility of man. By limiting government to strict terms and domains, we keep the worst among us from rising viciously to the top...a trick that Socialism has so far never been able to master.

*No, it's not. Democracy is the mob takin' yer shit after givin' you a chance to say no, I prefer to keep my shit.

**No, it doesn't. It caters to that corruptible nature. Only a natural rights-based minarchy takes that Fatal Tendency of Mankind into account. The whole and single purpose of the Night Watchman proxy is to blunt that Fatal Tendency.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:22 am **Well, democracy, I suppose, is a way of "asking."[/b] Or, if you like, of "tempting" people with policies.

No, it's not. Democracy is the mob takin' yer shit after givin' you a chance to say no, I prefer to keep my shit.

In a sense, that can be true. But some people will prefer to take the gains of coordinating projects into consideration, and decide that combined resources can achieve things that individuals find difficult or impossible to achieve, and may accept the trade-off. And if they "prefer" to do that, I wouldn't say they cannot. Again, it's up to them...keep your own stuff, or pool resources: your call, because it starts as your stuff.

Only a natural rights-based minarchy takes that Fatal Tendency of Mankind into account. The whole and single purpose of the Night Watchman proxy is to blunt that Fatal Tendency.

I'd say even a "natural rights minarchy" is still a concession to the necessity of some sort of common projects. It may be minimal, but it's still the residual problem: how do we coordinate?

But that's inevitable, isn't it? So long as larger numbers can do things individuals cannot achieve, we're going to need some coordination and governance. So long as men and women are flawed, we're going to have to hedge against allowing any of them too much power. That's the tightrope we must walk, given the realities with which we all live.

how do we coordinate?

Voluntarily.

As I say: how men choose to organize themselves voluntarily is on them. 12 men or 12 million, the back & forth, give & take, the negotiation, the contract, remains the same: agreement/consent, or rejection.

No is a powerful thing, in the assertion and in the acceptance.

The State, and democracy, deny one his no. Democracy favors the many, the State favors authority.

My minarchy, as I say, does nuthin' but preserve individual life, liberty, and property. It preserves no. It encourages negotiation, diplomacy, coordination, and innovation precisely becuz it allows no coercion.

Today, a developer can force a property holder off his land by makin' appeals to the greater good of the community and thru application of eminent domain argument, or by campaign contributions to presidin' legislators.

In a minarchy the developer has only 3 options: convince the property holder to sell, create a workaround that accomplishes his goal while respectin' the property holder's no, or give up the project.

Today, a body of lawmakers can move to apply restrictions against citizenry, for the public good, with virtually no justification.

In a minarchy, there are no law makers, no one is gifted with authority over another. If one or many believe all would be served by wearin' masks then they must present their argument to whoever chooses to listen, and accept that some simply won't listen, or -- if they do listen -- will reject the argument.

The notion of shunning needs a comeback. The majority believes X is appropriate, a minority disagrees: it is permissible that both should shun the other (refuse to associate, refuse to do business with, etc.). It becomes a contest of will (who can bear exclusion longer). There's no leash, no gun to the temple, no nightstick on the back. no seizure of property, no prison. Just choice and consequence.

I'm ramblin'...promotin' that which not a soul has an interest in.

'nuff said.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:48 pm No is a powerful thing, in the assertion and in the acceptance.

Best two-letter word there is.

And "asserted" firmly, it doesn't even care about whether or not the "acceptance" part comes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:46 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:51 pm ... investigative journalism and whistleblowing are honoured.

Not in our society, they're not. Conformist revisionist writing, not reporting, is valued here. And whistleblowing can get you run out of the country.

Ruling regimes do not always reflect popular, or intellectual, cultures. Is your country of residence a democracy?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:46 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:51 pm ... investigative journalism and whistleblowing are honoured.

Not in our society, they're not. Conformist revisionist writing, not reporting, is valued here. And whistleblowing can get you run out of the country.

Ruling regimes do not always reflect popular, or intellectual, cultures. Is your country of residence a democracy?

Allegedly, yes; but why would that matter? It wouldn't change a statement about how things are being done in the West more generally.

Ruling regimes do not always reflect popular, or intellectual, cultures.

Of course not. They try to shape popular and intellectual culture. Even the most benign do this.And they all do this to manufacture approval & consent, so they can remain in power.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:28 pm Ruling regimes do not always reflect popular, or intellectual, cultures.

Of course not. They try to shape popular and intellectual culture. Even the most benign do this.And they all do this to manufacture approval & consent, so they can remain in power.

Darn right.

The Socialist regime cannot tolerate rivals...whether ideologies, political parties, or just individual dissidents, because all of them ruin its plans for the production of the ideal "collective."

So, in the name of fairness, justice, equality and the common good, they persecute those "unhelpful" folks ruthlessly, or march them all off to re-education camps, or shoot them into the ditches...or all three.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:22 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:48 pm No is a powerful thing, in the assertion and in the acceptance.

Best two-letter word there is.

And "asserted" firmly, it doesn't even care about whether or not the "acceptance" part comes.

It better care, it has to care.

Where no is dismissed, as it is in democracy (when no is the answer of the minority), it is acceptable to steal, to kill, to jail the minority.

And, often, it isn't even as honest as 51 dominatin' 49. No, in representative democracy, the reps do the votin' and aren't echoin' the desire of the majority. Instead, they, as I say, look to manufacture approval and consent.

Direct, representative, liquid: they all bite.

-----

I had an inklin', a fragment of an echo of a memory about BuSab.

Looked it up and refreshed my head.

Frank Herbert wrote some space opera about the Bureau of Sabotage...

New bureaus and directorates, odd ministries, leaped into existence for the most improbable purposes. These became the citadels of a new aristocracy, rulers who kept the giant wheel of government careening along, spreading destruction, violence, and chaos wherever they touched. In those desperate times, a handful of people [...] created the Sabotage Corps to slow that runaway wheel of government.

...BuSab's single job, its mandate, is to flummox government.

It employs natural troublemakers, men and women, who like to wreck shit.

You love democracy? Fine...I want BuSab as the check and balance.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:40 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:28 pm Ruling regimes do not always reflect popular, or intellectual, cultures.

Of course not. They try to shape popular and intellectual culture. Even the most benign do this.And they all do this to manufacture approval & consent, so they can remain in power.

Darn right.

The Socialist regime cannot tolerate rivals...whether ideologies, political parties, or just individual dissidents, because all of them ruin its plans for the production of the ideal "collective."

So, in the name of fairness, justice, equality and the common good, they persecute those "unhelpful" folks ruthlessly, or march them all off to re-education camps, or shoot them into the ditches...or all three.

You got a bee in your bonnet about them socialists.

From where I stand, ain't none of 'em (from the anarcho-capitalists clear through to the conventional repubs-conservs/dems-progs all the way over to the flat-out communists) worth warm spit on a hot sidewalk. Every last one of 'em looks to manufacture approval and consent, and not a one tolerates opposition.

Socialism does not require authoritarianism. It does not require resource control beyond that which most other governments require as a matter of being a basic necessity of governance.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:08 pm Socialism does not require authoritarianism. It does not require resource control beyond that which most other governments require as a matter of being a basic retirement necessity of governance.

Not seein' a definition...not seein' the thing that you say doesn't require authoritarianism.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:00 pm...not a one tolerates opposition.

How do you tolerate opposition?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:46 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:00 pm...not a one tolerates opposition.

How do you tolerate opposition?

I just do.

If my enemy isn't bluntin' my life, liberty, or property, why wouldn't I?

He's free to market his view as he likes. I may contest with him, like I do with you folks, but this is harmless...at the end of the day, my enemy can't do diddly to hobble me, nor can I do anything to hobble any of him.

Gloves are off, though, when my enemy decides to interfere with me...when he attempts to direct my life, restrict my liberty, claim my property, we move from opposition to war.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:59 pmGloves are off, though, when my enemy decides to interfere with me...when he attempts to direct my life, restrict my liberty, claim my property, we move from opposition to war.

Seems reasonable. I just wonder because interactions in your space appear only to involve two people. What if your enemy has an ally?