[Monique]

No it cannot we are not at a time where a group of persons can go somewhere and not obey any laws. We also, have governments to protect us.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Yes and no. In its simplest form, capitalism is simply barter and exchange. Barter and exchange occurs in very simple societies and requires no police forces, courts, and the like. You can see barter and exchange among preschoolers in the playground, or in the simplest societies you can find anywhere in the world, or anywhere in recorded history. If two or more people agree to swap goods or services (rather than fighting with one another to get them), then that is barter. Their agreement doesn't have to be enforced by any outside force.

I disagree with this paragraph in this: there is a point where dishonesty come into play, or the feeling of having been cheated. Then, the parties have to resolve the situation by force, or through a third party. In other "societies" as you call them, the elders will play a role in conflicts and arbiter the different. The process does not require complexity; it creates complexities as soon as some individuals decide to either disrespect the rules, or there is a misunderstanding over what is being exchanged.

So, yes it is true that in more sophisticated societies you get additional layers of sophisticated enforcement of economic transactions, and having such tools as money and courts for recourse makes the whole thing more efficient, but no, it isn't the case that in order to have economic transactions you have to have the modern trappings of government. People were bartering and exchanging goods and services thousands of years before things like money, police, courts, and lawyers were invented.

This looks like an oversimplification of reality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Alright, I think we’re using different definitions of capitalism. I’m talking specifically about capitalism as a complete economic system, and you seem to be talking about pockets of trade that can be (loosely) labeled “capitalism". Perhaps there's a term pocket capitalism or something. Much of what you describe would probably more closely be mercantilism. Mercantilism did rely on state action- established trade routes, treaties with trade partners, conquered territories and colonies, etc. Also much of it wasn’t actual free and competitive enterprise that anyone other than merchants with some level of favor by the state could partake of.

Anyway, I concede your point if we’re talking about pockets of loosely defined “capitalism” existing without an official state. But in most cases, it’s probably not sustainable, is subject to whim, and can easily be subjugated.

But I still believe an actual economic system of capitalism that sustains itself and meets all the actual requirements, isn’t possible without rule of law. And for certain, functioning capitalism requires rule of law and enforcement to curb its worst tendencies, IE: slavery, gangsterism, monopolies, etc.

There really isn't a difference between mercantalism and capitalism. What you describe: "established trade routes, treaties with trade partners, conquered territories and colonies, etc." jumps the gun by several hundred years. There have been merchants within, between, and without governments for long before those things you describe. International law with respect to commerce is a particularly recent development. There still isn't all that much of it compared to national law, and yet commerce and private property do exist.

They exist because of custom. In a sense, custom and the rule of law are one and the same thing. That is why the laws of commerce are rather similar even between completely different legal traditions. There is even an interesting case you can look up if you are curious. In LIAMCO v. Libyan Arab Republic, Libya nationalized an American oil company without paying compensation. Libya argued that the rules about compensation didn't apply because it was an Arab socialist republic, not a western capitalist one. An arbitrator was appointed. He was a distinguished Islamic jurist. He compared Roman law, Common law, and Islamic law and concluded on that important question they all agreed. Consequently, he found against Libya.

That result isn't surprising because the laws that you think postdate the rise of capitalism in fact do no such thing. They mostly codify unwritten rules and customs that existed long before laws were written down, and certainly before states invented things like police forces, legal codes, courts, arbitrators, and the like.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I disagree with this paragraph in this: there is a point where dishonesty come into play, or the feeling of having been cheated. Then, the parties have to resolve the situation by force, or through a third party. In other "societies" as you call them, the elders will play a role in conflicts and arbiter the different. The process does not require complexity; it creates complexities as soon as some individuals decide to either disrespect the rules, or there is a misunderstanding over what is being exchanged.

I agree that societies, even extremely simple ones, always establish arbiters. But that doesn't require a state. People can and do appoint them themselves.

That being so, the real question isn't whether capitalism is possible without states, but whether complete anarchy is really possible. The answer is probably no because people rather naturally establish social structures, as is demonstrated by the universality of some form of ordered and structured society. Even societies that seem to have broken down (ones in conflict, civil war, etc.) still have order.

Thus, to the extent that people have been arguing that economic systems aren't possible without order, the premise is wrong. Lack of a formal government does not imply lack of order.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In your example of the seller of spoiled milk, there is indeed an enforcement mechanism without the need for courts.

This is the weakness of your reasoning. You are using 2 different levels of logic in the same syllogism.

a) buying spoiled milk (the act of buying)
b) enforcement mechanism without the need of courts (you admit the existence of an enforcement mecanism, but because it is not "court" it does not count anymore as a way to institute control).

You therefore torpedoed yourself by not respecting the simple rules of logic: comparing equivalent concepts, and in doing so, admitted (yet denying it in the same proposition) that there is an enforcement mechanism.

You also deny the possibility of other ad hoc parties involved in controling transactions: witnesses. And just as exchanges are not intitutionalized, so is the involvement of witnesses. If you intend to compare institutions, you will have to use banks, commerce, and courts. When there are no institutions, it does not mean there are no means of control/enforcement of unwritten rules, yet clear expectations.

The seller of rotten milk would have lost a future customer (you), and future customers (all your friends),

Not necessarily. You forgot the potential existence of monopolies, which will set prices at skyrocketing values. If there is only one goat in town, owned by one individual, and you need milk, the following consequences are possible:

1) inflation of prices (and the lack of women to pay the price for it which can become an explosive issue)
2) an attempt at stealing the goat, and see another potential degradation of the social balance
3) sacrifice the goat in an attempt to create justice, but exposing yourself to revenge from those who were able to purchase the milk.

Meanwhile, you will purchase your milk from a competitor who sells fresh milk, and tell all your friends to do the same. The seller of bad milk will over time lose business to the other sellers who have the reputation of selling fresh milk. This is called competition, it is extremely powerful, and it happens without the government doing anything.

This works only when the goods are available in sufficient quantity to allow competition.

I think the basic problem here is you have a very narrow idea of what the "law" is. The law is simply the rules of society. Society had rules long before people started calling it the law. And indeed, much of modern law is simply codified custom. You don't need to have courts to enforce customs, and as I pointed out before, most commercial contracts are carried out completely without legal process. They are carried out because it is in the mutual benefit of all parties to do so.

We live in a modern world, and this thread is speculating on a scenario that is outside of our understanding of the ideal world, which appears to be strongly tainted by our political beliefs.

Basically, you seem to cling to the idea that capitalism and commerce has its origin in coercion. That is really fundamentally wrong. Capitalism works because it relies on mutual benefit.

Ideally. Not in practice.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I agree that societies, even extremely simple ones, always establish arbiters. But that doesn't require a state. People can and do appoint them themselves.

I have yet to see a simple society. They always appear simple, but they all grow in complexity as we look at them. And yes, arbiters will be appointed by themselves, or by common consensus, I agree.

That being so, the real question isn't whether capitalism is possible without states, but whether complete anarchy is really possible. The answer is probably no because people rather naturally establish social structures, as is demonstrated by the universality of some form of ordered and structured society. Even societies that seem to have broken down (ones in conflict, civil war, etc.) still have order.

I agree. Anarchy is impossible because of what appears to be self-organizing tendencies of humans.

Thus, to the extent that people have been arguing that economic systems aren't possible without order, the premise is wrong. Lack of a formal government does not imply lack of order.

I agree. But governments can appear the facto; there is a difference between the "institution", and the self-appointed leadership, which can appear by rule of force, or simple, passing popularity. In some societies, there is no "chief", but the leader is the good hunter, and because of his skills, people ask for his "wisdom" based on his hunting success to resolve issues. But once the hunting goes bad, the skills are sought elsewhere amongst the group members. And then, if no replacement is available, the system goes unbalanced, until a new order forms up. Sometimes, a group of people will go away, and separate from the others. Sometimes, the noisiest will be eliminated by the majority, or by the cleverest ones, and then a new leadership appears.

Are governement necessary? I think that anarchy makes leadership a thing of the moment, and last while it works. I bet we could interpret the actual world order as one phase of stability before a potential phase of anarchy. Could the events of 9/11 be a symptom of that? I wonder. Nevertheless, we could probably suppose that we live in a state of "controlled" or "contained" anarchy, limiting it to small society pockets.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Not necessarily. You forgot the potential existence of monopolies, which will set prices at skyrocketing values. If there is only one goat in town, owned by one individual, and you need milk, the following consequences are possible:

1) inflation of prices (and the lack of women to pay the price for it which can become an explosive issue)
2) an attempt at stealing the goat, and see another potential degradation of the social balance
3) sacrifice the goat in an attempt to create justice, but exposing yourself to revenge from those who were able to purchase the milk.

Monopolies are always a temporary phenomenon. Either some supplier will step up with another goat, or a satisfacotry replacement for the goat. Demands tend to be met, and that being so, people are rather inventive in coming up with ways to meet the demand. Maybe not with something completely identical (land is the ultimate monopoly, because all land is unique), but if not with something identical, then with something interchangable. Maybe even something better. It doesn't necessarily happen overnight, which is why people worry about the economic effects of monopolies (while they last, they can be quite disruptive to an economy), but over time alternatives will be created. The monopolist might reap a temporary windfall, but it doesn't last.

In fact, most monopolies you see in the real world that do last are created by government, or by other mechanisms that are independent of government, Patents are an example of a government-created monopoly, Guilds are example of a monopoly created by non-governmental custom. Government or non-governmental restraints act to prevent others from satisfying the demand. In other words, the existence of monopolies is not a necessary function of government, or of lack of government. It's more a matter of how people order themselves into societies, including societies that don't have what we in the modern world think of as a government.

And if you think about it, the line between a government and a society without the trappings of government is quite fuzzy. People equate government with a state, but a tribe has government. If a tribe has government, then what about a clan? And if a clan, then how about a family? Order and social organization is part of human nature.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Monopolies are always a temporary phenomenon.

Not always. Sometimes, a monopoly means the end of the resource, therefore leading to the exodus ot the destruction of the people needing that resource. Easter Island could be such an example.

Either some supplier will step up with another goat, or a satisfacotry replacement for the goat.

Or all the goats are destroyed from over consumption, and it happens that the island you live has no other goats.

Demands tend to be met, and that being so, people are rather inventive in coming up with ways to meet the demand. Maybe not with something completely identical (land is the ultimate monopoly, because all land is unique), but if not with something identical, then with something interchangable. Maybe even something better. It doesn't necessarily happen overnight, which is why people worry about the economic effects of monopolies (while they last, they can be quite disruptive to an economy), but over time alternatives will be created. The monopolist might reap a temporary windfall, but it doesn't last.

But in the meantime, while there is a search for replacement products, people still lead their lives and keep on being hungry. Since some products are lacking, peple are quick to generalize that if product "a" is no longer available from over use, they are likely to go for all "n" products before supplies are depleted. Suddenly, you have a mad crowd making reserves for stuff they don't need, and destroy reserves. Pres-catastrophe situations are a good example of that. So the powerful ones will look at controling resources for their benefit, and there is a new "sherif" in town...

[quote]In fact, most monopolies you see in the real world that do last are created by government, or by other mechanisms that are independent of government, Patents are an example of a government-created monopoly, Guilds are example of a monopoly created by non-governmental custom. Government or non-governmental restraints act to prevent others from satisfying the demand. In other words, the existence of monopolies is not a necessary function of government, or of lack of government. It's more a matter of how people order themselves into societies, including societies that don't have what we in the modern world think of as a government.[quote]

I think this is a gross miscaracterization of the situation that has nothing to do with facts. Yes governments can be at the origin of monopolies, but governments are not sentient entities; they are made of people, and that is what we are refering to here: the ability of people to exchange goods without third party controlling them.

And if you think about it, the line between a government and a society without the trappings of government is quite fuzzy.

It is the difference between "government-the institution" and "government-self-appointed or imposed by self-organizing circumstances". I do not see what is fuzzy about it; there is control or there is not. The difference lies in its stability in time and extension.

People equate government with a state, but a tribe has government. If a tribe has government, then what about a clan? And if a clan, then how about a family? Order and social organization is part of human nature.

Therefore, economies without a governing entity cannot be. "Government" is just a tag applied to a concentration of power/control, whether self-appointed or supported by the majority, or a significant portion of the population concerned.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Therefore, economies without a governing entities cannot be. "Government" is just a tag applied to a concentration of power/control, whether self-appointed or supported by the majority, or a significant portion of the population concerned.

I don't see this. "Government" isn't a thing, it's an idea. Even in dictatorships, government requires people and belief in its existence to work. It's probably why dictatoships collapse as suddenly as they do. Governments seem all powerful until the moment that people realize that a particular government is not. That's why one day the Berlin Wall was certain death for all who tried to cross it, and the next day it was just a big souvenir. Once the common agreement in the idea is gone, so is its apparent power.

However, one idea of government is quickly replaced by another. People organize themselves, it's inherent in our natures to do so, just as it is inherent in an ant's nature to build a nest. It's not extermal power that causes that, it's just what we do.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I don't see this. "Government" isn't a thing, it's an idea.

Entity:

An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.

Even in dictatorships, government requires people and belief in its existence to work. It's probably why dictatoships collapse as suddenly as they do. Governments seem all powerful until the moment that people realize that a particular government is not. That's why one day the Berlin Wall was certain death for all who tried to cross it, and the next day it was just a big souvenir. Once the common agreement in the idea is gone, so is its apparent power.

However, one idea of government is quickly replaced by another. People organize themselves, it's inherent in our natures to do so, just as it is inherent in an ant's nature to build a nest. It's not extermal power that causes that, it's just what we do.

Therefore, economies without a governing entity cannot be.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Entity:



Therefore, economies without a governing entity cannot be.

You hang far too much onto a semantic point. I'm asking a more basic question. What is behind the semantic notion "government." I think the answer is nothing, eccept of course, for our common agreement and belief. Mostly, that's fine for day to day purposes (my business as a lawyer would clearly fall apart if we all insisted that everything is relative). Nevertheless, if we are going to elevate this to a philosophical point, you have to move to a level more abstact. Semantic arguments therefore don't quite cut it. Because semantics are no more real than the abstractions they describe.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You hang far too much onto a semantic point.

No. You said governments are not "things", as a response to my post pointing to "government" as an entity". I provided you with the definition of "entity". You're bastardization of ideas and definitions

I'm asking a more basic question. What is behind the semantic notion "government." I think the answer is nothing, eccept of course, for our common agreement and belief.

It's called a convention. Language is a set of conventions, and so are grammar, vocabulary, and basic notions such as "time", "space" and concepts like "government". Semantic "notions" are such conventions.

At this time, the convention regarding "government" is rather well defined. But if you don't believe in governments, I suspect there is no need for you to waste time about them.

Mostly, that's fine for day to day purposes (my business as a lawyer would clearly fall apart if we all insisted that everything is relative). Nevertheless, if we are going to elevate this to a philosophical point, you have to move to a level more abstact.

We mostly need to respect the definitions used by said conventions.

Semantic arguments therefore don't quite cut it. Because semantics are no more real than the abstractions they describe.

I see. So you don't like being told you are wrong, and therefore, decide that this exchange is not worthy.

Well, since "Because semantics are no more real than the abstractions they describe" I won't bother try to understand your meaningless posts.

Cheers!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

At this time, the convention regarding "government" is rather well defined. But if you don't believe in governments, I suspect there is no need for you to waste time about them.

On a practical level, of course I believe in governments. I live in a society. One of the rules of that society is the government I live under. So long as everyone agrees to respect the social convention of the government, the government will have real effect on my life.

That's practical reality at the micro level in which we all live. However, move up the ladder of abstraction, and governments start seeming less like independent entities with solid existence, and more like simply the abstract way in which human being organize themselves.

I am not sure what you background is, but this is how political science works. In order to describe complex interactions, you have to move up the level of abstraction. You can't see the big picture if you remain at the micro level. Pointing out that government isn't anything more than a set of rules we have agreed to (or are born into and do not have the opportunity to really question) usually doesn't change our day to day lives. But like other political science observations, it can be useful to explain events that we do see. Such as, for example, the sudden collapse of entire governing regimes when everyone collectively decides the set of rules under which they lived for years, and which had great apparent power over them suddenly don't have power over them. If one person were to come to that conclusion, nothing happens. But when everyone comes to it, the whole house of cards turns out to be extraordinarily fragile. That kind of a moment is a window into the more abstract reality of what government is: simply the rules we all buy into. And as such, it has no tangible existence.

If this bothers you, I suggest you never ponder what tangible existence money has. That is another set of rules that governs our micro lives, but at a higher level of abstraction turns out to be nothing tangible at all. Without the collective agreement of society, money is completely meaningless.

Now, does this mean I don't believe in money? Not at all. As a matter of fact, I got a raise today.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

On a practical level, of course I believe in governments. I live in a society. One of the rules of that society is the government I live under. So long as everyone agrees to respect the social convention of the government, the government will have real effect on my life.

It's also about you, willing to be submitted by these rules. Of course, you'd be jobless otherwise. That is a useful convention to you. If you refuse these rules, you still acknowledge their existence by acting opposite them. If you use them against the system, you're just attempting to modify the balance of power to your advantage.

That's practical reality at the micro level in which we all live. However, move up the ladder of abstraction, and governments start seeming less like independent entities with solid existence, and more like simply the abstract way in which human being organize themselves.

I am not sure what you background is, but this is how political science works. In order to describe complex interactions, you have to move up the level of abstraction.

I don't care much about your background. Political Science is an abstraction which is useless for the purpose of this thread. The example of 2 people exchanging goods is enough to demonstrate that anarchy in a capitalistic system is bound to self-destruction. Add more and you multiply the complexity of the system, but it all comes down to the same basics.

Like it or not, it all boils down to the basic exchange of goods, and the need of a third party for arbitration. You can abstract as much as you want, but the arbiter will be required at some point, because human beings are not always able to settle things on their own, as I demonstrated before.

You can't see the big picture if you remain at the micro level.

But life happens right there, at the "micro" level. Philosophy is great with a belly full, and a top over your head. But when it's down to the bare essentials, things are different.

Pointing out that government isn't anything more than a set of rules we have agreed to (or are born into and do not have the opportunity to really question) usually doesn't change our day to day lives.

If a dictator is your government your daily life is likely to be affected. If it's making you pay three times the price, or make you line up for five hours for toilet paper, that abstraction is quite concrete. If the secret police comes to your home and check for money under the mat that is supposed to be in the pockect of that government, it is possible that someone will not eat tonight as well as usual.

You are cheating in your argumentation. You basically use generalizations, but pick only truncated aspects. Here is an example:

But like other political science observations, it can be useful to explain events that we do see. Such as, for example, the sudden collapse of entire governing regimes when everyone collectively decides the set of rules under which they lived for years, and which had great apparent power over them suddenly don't have power over them. If one person were to come to that conclusion, nothing happens. But when everyone comes to it, the whole house of cards turns out to be extraordinarily fragile. That kind of a moment is a window into the more abstract reality of what government is: simply the rules we all buy into. And as such, it has no tangible existence.

It has no tangilble existence because you refuse to see that one ruling is out waiting for another, and that transition time is basically a situation of crisis because people expect an upcoming leadership to happen. If your government were to fall, you'd be the first to ask its return because ot the advantages you gain from it. For instance, the National Guard to protect you from the looters. Or would you prefer "protection" from the gangs?

You can deny the existence of directing superstructures all you want, but unfortunately, the fact that people act on them confirms their existence, otherwise, they could not change them. I understand very well that concepts are not "tangible", but it does not mean they do not exist. As Bateson said, saying nothing means something.

If this bothers you, I suggest you never ponder what tangible existence money has.

Why would this bother me? I clearly explained earlier that there exists conventions amongst groups of people. Conventions are abstractions.

That is another set of rules that governs our micro lives, but at a higher level of abstraction turns out to be nothing tangible at all. Without the collective agreement of society, money is completely meaningless.

Money does not rule the world. People rule the world with money. And yes, it is another convention.

Now, does this mean I don't believe in money? Not at all. As a matter of fact, I got a raise today.

I could not care less.

At a meta level, everything is an abstraction. but the question asked by the OP is:

Two simple questions: can society function without government, and if so, how could such a system be brought about?

No. Therefore, there are no answers possible for the second question.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

So what are you saying? People choose to be a slave? Thats a great arguement for free trade if I ever heard of one...

Actually, the word "slave" is this context is inappropriate. A "slave" is someone who can't quit, because he'll be hunted down and brought back to his employer in chains. A "scab" is not a "slave"; he doesn't have to take the job in the first place, and after he takes it he can quit. Union propagandists, and other socialists, use the word "slavery" as a way to influence the scab to believe that the job he took of his own free will is in reality an injustice against him.

It is clear that everyone does not have a choice to what happens to their lives. The reality is, no matter how much self motivation one might have, with no government assistance the majority of people who live in slums have no escape.

The first sentence is true, but the second sentence is both false and ironic. Many people don't have a choice, because thugs impose their will on them. But government--especially in the so-called "developing" world--is usually the source of the oppression. Observe that those people are oppressed and have governments. You appear to be assuming without proof that the oppression would be worse if the government weren't on the job, when you yourself know that the folks doing the oppressing are either government officials themselves, or folks with government connections.

Anyway, my real point is that one thing I have learned from working in Africa is that nothing substantial can change WITHOUT heavy government involvement.

The governments of Africa are busier than beavers even as we speak. Why isn't Africa a paradise yet?

--Poogy

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

There really isn't a difference between mercantalism and capitalism.

There is, but mercantilists today always claim to be capitalists, and so muddy the waters. Capitalism, at least the laissez-faire variety, considers any voluntary transaction legitimate, and any transaction involving force illegitimate.

Mercantilism is the doctrine that it is in one's economic best interest always to maintain a favorable balance of trade--i.e., that money is always flowing in, and goods flowing out. Mercantilism is consistent with colonialism, in that colonies offer a tempting captive market, that can be forced to buy products from the mother country, and pay its bills with hard money.

Today so many are obsessed with "trade deficits", that the prevailing sentiment is undistinguishable from mercantilism, it's true--but the mistake is to imagine that the prevailing sentiment is capitalist. It isn't.

--Poogy.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I don't see this. "Government" isn't a thing, it's an idea. Even in dictatorships, government requires people and belief in its existence to work. It's probably why dictatoships collapse as suddenly as they do. Governments seem all powerful until the moment that people realize that a particular government is not. That's why one day the Berlin Wall was certain death for all who tried to cross it, and the next day it was just a big souvenir.

Very true. Every government, from the smallest tribe of bushmen to the Third Reich, is "of the people", in that its power exists only because enough people either support it, or accept it passively.

If every American woke up on July 4, and decided that some portion of our laws is invalid, and all began disregarding those laws, what would happen? The government would make some attempts at enforcement, until it became clear that enforcement was impossible. Then the politicians would struggle for their own survival by convincing the people that the government is still in charge, and that the momentous morning of July 4 really meant nothing. They would do so using a two-pronged attack: first, they would repeal the laws that were being disregarded, to remove the embarrassment of universal lawbreaking; second, they would make an example of some high-profile law-breakers, in order to prove that government isn't pushed around by citizens. It would probably work; the people would go back to sleep.

If every American civilian awoke on July 4 and decided that the US government itself is a fiction, that they refuse to believe in any longer, the result would be a bloodbath. Teddy Kennedy and all his ilk would order the army to occupy the major cities and shoot scofflaws to kill. They wouldn't hesitate to slaughter American citizens to secure their own power, just as Lincoln did before them.

If all the servicemen awoke on July 4 with the same decision, then the government would evaporate. The howls of politicians on the dying of their power would be music to listen to, though. It would be like a trip back to the tenth century BC or so. "The wrath of God will smite you all, unless you obey us your overlords! There will be plagues of locusts! Vampire bats will swallow up the sun!"

--Poogy

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Money does not rule the world. People rule the world with money. And yes, it is another convention.

People rule the world with guns. If you started disobeying the US government, an accountant wouldn't show up with a check. An officer would show up with a gun and handcuffs.

Money is indeed influential--if that weren't so, there'd be no point in getting rich, would there? But that doesn't equate to rulership. If I'm richer than you, and live high on the hog, you would no doubt be envious; it's no fun living low on the hog. But have I harmed you in any way? No, your envy is self-harm. I didn't inflict it upon you.

I could probably offer you $1,000,000 to eat a bucket of dirt, worms and all, and you might well do it. But does that make me your ruler? Your lord and master? Apparently you want that million, badly enough that a bucket of dirt doesn't look so bad to you. But you're free to tell me to buzz off, and that my mother wears combat boots. I haven't done anything to you. Your pride is self-harm.

of course, I could also pay your next-door neighbor $1,000,000 to make you eat dirt. That's probably what you mean by "ruling the world with money." But it isn't really the money that gives me power over you--it's the gun. If your neighbor is an unarmed weakling, my $1,000,000 still can't make you eat dirt. It's the gun in his hand that makes me powerful.

It's true that rich men hire thugs. It's equally true that thugs usually expend their thuggery in pursuit of wealth. So there's often a correlation between wealth and power. But at the end of the day, it's not the money. It's the guns.

--Poogy.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Poogy

A "slave" is someone who can't quit, because he'll be hunted down and brought back to his employer in chains.

So? – He can still quit! It's all about accepting the consequences of your actions. In essence there is no such thing as 'slavery'. As soon as the will to act is stronger than the fear of retribution, freedom is still a possiblity.

It's just that in some cases the threat constitutes being hunted down and brought back to work in chains, and in others it's being poor, not having anything to eat and not having a roof over the head. In the end it's not about decisions, but about options.

Anybody who doesn't realize this is just kidding themselves. If the police and the army weren't there to protect the 'trade cast', there would be no capitalism as we know it.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

So? – He can still quit! It's all about accepting the consequences of your actions. In essence there is no such thing as 'slavery'. As soon as the will to act is stronger than the fear of retribution, freedom is still a possiblity.

That's not a meaningful semantic quibble. If a slave tries to quit, people try to kill him. If a scab quits, nobody tries to kill him. One relationship involves the threat of force, and another doesn't. Oh, except that in the scab's case, people threaten to assault him if he doesn't quit. The union thugs are in the same family as the slavers.

It's just that in some cases the threat constitutes being hunted down and brought back to work in chains, and in others it's being poor...

No, there's a vital difference. If the employer had never been born, or his place burned down, you'd still be poor--but is that an act of violence by the employer against you? If you are unemployed, is every employer in the world somehow guilty that you are in that condition? Which one of them owes you a job--or do they all owe some sort of reparations for your lack of a job? How did you come into this claim over their property?

In short, the slaver imposes his will forcibly on another person, by saying, "Pick cotton for me or I'll have you messily killed." The employer does not impose his will forcibly on another. He makes an offer; you take it or you don't, as you please. Nobody is exerting force on the person or property of another.

When you equate the two, you are essentially saying that your envy gives you a claim to his property. That if he doesn't pay you some wage you name, he has actually stolen something from you. That isn't true.

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

People rule the world with guns. (...)
But at the end of the day, it's not the money. It's the guns.

--Poogy.

You need money for the guns.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

You need money for the guns.

It helps, but it isn't the only way. For starters, I don't mean guns literally: the situation was the same before gunpowder was invented. If I want to control my village, I can start small, with thugs carrying sticks. Having cowed the populace into submission, I can put them to work making me swords, or catapults, or bath-houses--whatever I like.

If one blames wealth, when violence is at fault, then one leaps to bad conclusions--such as that socialism reduces oppression, by eliminating the wealthy class. Mental clarity requires that the blame be assigned correctly. Blame belongs to anyone who uses coercive force, whether he's rich and mean, or poor and mean.

--Poogy.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

It helps, but it isn't the only way. For starters, I don't mean guns literally: the situation was the same before gunpowder was invented. If I want to control my village, I can start small, with thugs carrying sticks. Having cowed the populace into submission, I can put them to work making me swords, or catapults, or bath-houses--whatever I like.

If one blames wealth, when violence is at fault, then one leaps to bad conclusions--such as that socialism reduces oppression, by eliminating the wealthy class. Mental clarity requires that the blame be assigned correctly. Blame belongs to anyone who uses coercive force, whether he's rich and mean, or poor and mean.

--Poogy.

Sure. But the guns are a means to an end: wealth.

Make it paper, coins, gold, diamonds, bling or women, it's all about wealth.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Sure. But the guns are a means to an end: wealth. Make it paper, coins, gold, diamonds, bling or women, it's all about wealth.

So wait. You've said money is a means to get guns, which are a means to get money...

What you say is true, but only partially. US politicians always end up wealthy, so money is certainly part of it. but is that a full and complete explanation of their crimes? People want other things than money. Power is a big one. Power, not as a means to get money, but as a means to push people around. To receive the fawning adulation of others. That kind of thing.

Most things people want, money can buy--so money becomes one of people's main goals. But it's not clear thinking to imagine that money is the only end. It's one end. Often it's a means to other ends.

But you're wandering off the point of this subthread. The original claim was that oppression is wealth, and oppressors are the wealthy. I replied that it simply isn't true. A wealthy person who never initiates coercive force against another is not an oppressor. Conversely, anyone who does initiate coercieve force against another is an oppressor, whether he's rich or poor.

The confusion is understandable, since oppression tends to be a profitable business, so oppressors tend to end up wealthy. However, confusing mere wealth with actual oppression is muddy thinking, and tends toward socialism.

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

So wait. You've said money is a means to get guns, which are a means to get money...

What you say is true, but only partially. US politicians always end up wealthy, so money is certainly part of it. but is that a full and complete explanation of their crimes? People want other things than money. Power is a big one. Power, not as a means to get money, but as a means to push people around. To receive the fawning adulation of others. That kind of thing.

Most things people want, money can buy--so money becomes one of people's main goals. But it's not clear thinking to imagine that money is the only end. It's one end. Often it's a means to other ends.

But you're wandering off the point of this subthread. The original claim was that oppression is wealth, and oppressors are the wealthy. I replied that it simply isn't true. A wealthy person who never initiates coercive force against another is not an oppressor. Conversely, anyone who does initiate coercieve force against another is an oppressor, whether he's rich or poor.

The confusion is understandable, since oppression tends to be a profitable business, so oppressors tend to end up wealthy. However, confusing mere wealth with actual oppression is muddy thinking, and tends toward socialism.

--Poogy

As I wrote earlier, philosophy is great with a belly full and a top over your head.

In the end, it is about wealth. Or Power, if you prefer. Wealth is a means to more Power. Guns are a mean to more Power.

So in the end, it is about Power. My apologies for not making it clearer earlier.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

So i the end, it is about Power. My apologies for not making it clearer earlier.

You're still not being clear: you haven't made it clear whether a person who uses no coercive force against another can still be considered an oppressor, by virtue of being rich while the other is poor.

If you agree that "oppression" is what you call it when someone uses force on another, then we're all set.

--Poogy.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Poogy

That's not a meaningful semantic quibble. If a slave tries to quit, people try to kill him. If a scab quits, nobody tries to kill him.

If you don't have food to eat, you die. Same thing.

Also, you went from 'hunt down and forced to work' to 'being killed', which isn't always the price to pay for refusing to give into slavery.

Again, it's essentially the same.

Originally Posted by Poogy

If the employer had never been born, or his place burned down, you'd still be poor…

No. If the 'employer' didn't have people who work for him, he wouldn't have a place to be burned down.

Employment isn't the point of contention, – the exercise of free will is. A man who of his free will lends his skills, work and maybe even life to another person can never be a slave, a man who does the same against his will, always is.

[PB2K]

here is how it can work :

http://070.freetekno.nl/pictures/EAR...aatsburg-15-04

this is a current Tekno-party in Baden-Baden, Germany. We squatted a whole suburb that was about to be demolished and threw a party there. There is no police. I won't say that Anarchism is a good way to have an economy running, but I do say that small communicities, with the emphasis on small, can sustain itself. We do not need police or bouncers to control our parties. Our parties are spontaneous and self regulating .

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

If you don't have food to eat, you die. Same thing.

Please complete that thought. Are you saying that not hiring you is therefore an act of aggression against you? That every employer owes you a job? Or that only certain employers owe you a job? If the latter, which ones, and why?

There's no "same thing" about it. If you die of cancer, that's one thing. If you die because my union boys beat the snot out of you, that's another. In one case you were murdered; in the other case you weren't.

Employment isn't the point of contention, – the exercise of free will is. A man who of his free will lends his skills, work and maybe even life to another person can never be a slave, a man who does the same against his will, always is.

Right.

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

You're still not being clear: you haven't made it clear whether a person who uses no coercive force against another can still be considered an oppressor, by virtue of being rich while the other is poor.

Oppression:

the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted"

You can be an oppressor whenever you use any force: passivity can be a force when it maintains the status quo.

If you agree that "oppression" is what you call it when someone uses force on another, then we're all set.

--Poogy.

But then, greed is also a powerful motivator; your example of promising my neighbour a large sum of money to make me eat worms is an example of that. But that would be you using another person to achieve your objective, a tool. Somehow, that person turns into a weapon of persuasion. But no oppression yet, especially if the neighbour offers to share the money with me and I agree to the deal, as long as I get 51% of the total.

So you don't need force to maintain control. Sometimes, corruption is enough. For instance, Saddam Hussein paying Iraqi family leaders to maintain peace in villages during his reign.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Oppression:

the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted"

You can be an oppressor whenever you use any force: passivity can be a force when it maintains the status quo.

You started out well, by quoting a legitimate definition. Then you blew it by redefining "force" to include everything. According to you, keeping my mits to myself and minding my own business is "force'.

So you don't need force to maintain control.

Now you're making bad worse: not only can force include anything and everything, but now "control", which you appear to be using as a synonym for "oppression", doesn't even involve force. From the rest of the paragraph (which I snipped), you appear to be equating "motivation" with "control" and hence "oppression".

In other words, if a beautiful girl promises to date you, on condition that you dance in public with a lampshade on your head, she has committed an oppressive act of control. After all, sex is a powerful motivator...

Sometimes, corruption is enough. For instance, Saddam Hussein paying Iraqi family leaders to maintain peace in villages during his reign.

Depends what you mean. If I pay everyone in my town to salute when I drive by, and shout, "All hail the King of Town!" there's nothing oppressive about that whatsoever. You might find it disgusting, but nothing about it is "corrupt", let alone "oppressive". If instead I pay half the townspeople to beat up the other half, unless they shout "All hail the King of Town!" then I have committed oppression.

As I've said three times now on this thread, clear thinking requires a clear understanding of what is or isn't oppression. If everyone involved is acting of his or her own free will, no oppression has occurred--even if I'm paying a town full of people to eat buckets of dirt and to grovel in my presence.

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

You started out well, by quoting a legitimate definition. Then you blew it by redefining "force" to include everything. According to you, keeping my mits to myself and minding my own business is "force'.

Well, yes, if you see injustice around you and are not doing anything, you certainly are a part of the oppression by not doing anything about it. Passivity is a force in its own right. Saying nothing can be a statement; it is relative to the context.

Now you're making bad worse: not only can force include anything and everything,

You say it includes "anything and everything". I am respecting the definition I provided. A situation of "rest" is a force by it's own weight.

but now "control", which you appear to be using as a synonym for "oppression", doesn't even involve force. From the rest of the paragraph (which I snipped), you appear to be equating "motivation" with "control" and hence "oppression".

Nope. You are. I am mentioning special cases of will bending by using human weaknesses, which does not involve a "force". You make them seem as if I meant to say they are oppression.

By the way, control is:

a relation of constraint of one entity (thing or person or group) by another; "measures for the control of disease"; "they instituted controls over drinking on campus"

And motivation:

the reason(s) behind a particular character's actions which causes them to react or act in the way they do.

You can certainly control someone by acting on their motivation. You can even oppress them!

In other words, if a beautiful girl promises to date you, on condition that you dance in public with a lampshade on your head, she has committed an oppressive act of control. After all, sex is a powerful motivator...

Yes, sex is a powerful motivator. But it is not oppression. As mentionned earlier, there are other ways than oppression to make people do something.

Depends what you mean. If I pay everyone in my town to salute when I drive by, and shout, "All hail the King of Town!" there's nothing oppressive about that whatsoever. You might find it disgusting, but nothing about it is "corrupt", let alone "oppressive". If instead I pay half the townspeople to beat up the other half, unless they shout "All hail the King of Town!" then I have committed oppression.

Agreed.

As I've said three times now on this thread, clear thinking requires a clear understanding

Making attributions is not making things any clearer, as in "redefining "force" to include everything" as you did.

... of what is or isn't oppression. If everyone involved is acting of his or her own free will, no oppression has occurred--even if I'm paying a town full of people to eat buckets of dirt and to grovel in my presence.

--Poogy

Indeed. There is oppression, and there is motivation, and using people's motivations, i.e. manipulations.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Well, yes, if you see injustice around you and are not doing anything, you certainly are a part of the oppression by not doing anything about it. Passivity is a force in its own right. Saying nothing can be a statement; it is relative to the context.

You are asserting that I have a positive obligation to save you from oppression, and if I do not discharge that obligation then I am myself an oppressor. You need to justify your claim on me. I would reply that I have an obligation to do my best to protect my wife and son, and committing suicide by cop is a dereliction of that obligation.

In short: A attacks B. You claim that C is obligated to fight A in defense of B. What created that obligation? Does B own C? After all, forcing C to fight in B's defense, against C's will, is forced labor--i.e., slavery. Or was it A who created this obligation on C's part? In other words, if A decides to maraud the countryside, raping and pillaging, his decision to do so creates an obligation in C to abandon his wife and family, and go a-questing until A's reign of terror is over?

I reject that analysis. If someone out there commits an immoral act, he can't implicitly taint me with the guilt for his crimes. And similarly, if someone out there has a need or a want, that doesn't imply an obligation on me to fill it.

There are moral reasons I might resist A, or help B, but those reasons are between me and God. If you don't like my handling of the matter, you are perfectly free to count me out of your list of friends--but there is no sound basis for imposing an enforceable legal obligation on me, let alone indict me as an accomplice.

If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof rests on you.

You say it includes "anything and everything". I am respecting the definition I provided. A situation of "rest" is a force by it's own weight.

You are misapplying physics to a discussion of ethics. If it will help, I hereby declare that I will always say "aggression," and will never say "force" again.

Nope. You are. I am mentioning special cases of will bending by using human weaknesses, which does not involve a "force". You make them seem as if I meant to say they are oppression.

Then you've gone off topic. We're discussing morally culpable acts against others, and you have clearly asserted that I can be morally culpable even in cases that I offer no aggression to any soul. Most recently, you asserted it above: "if you see injustice around you and are not doing anything, you certainly are a part of the oppression..."

You can certainly control someone by acting on their motivation. You can even oppress them!

If you are acting entirely of your free will, then nobody has aggressed against you. Your rights are intact. No wrong of any kind has been committed. That remains true no matter how much people attempt to persuade you to do something, again assuming that no threats of any sort are employed. That's point one: do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Second, if someone is using no aggression, nor threat of physical attack, restraint or other harm against your person or property, then he is committing no crime of any kind. That remains true regardless how many other people might in fact be aggressing against you. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

You are asserting that I have a positive obligation to save you from oppression, and if I do not discharge that obligation then I am myself an oppressor. You need to justify your claim on me.

I never said anything about an obligation to save. You said it. All I am refering to is that inaction is an act of consent to the rules applied to others. Of course, I am not asking you to tell me your point of view; but your inaction paints you as pretty insensitive to other people's condition, right?

I would reply that I have an obligation to do my best to protect my wife and son, and committing suicide by cop is a dereliction of that obligation.

Oh! I see! Other people can be killed, but you will protect your wife and kid? So the principle of saving others is applicable to the people of your choice? But then, is that not true that your wife and kid are individuals in their own rights with the capacity to make their own choice and defend themselves?

Most likely you made a choice of saving people from a set of unspoken rules. You call it an obligation; I call it a choice by the same set of rules you use to disregard my argument that being passive can be an act of oppression in itself. But maybe the word "oppression" is inappropriate here. I'll grant you that. Maybe what I meant to say was that you can be complicit to an act of oppression by not acting.

In short: A attacks B. You claim that C is obligated to fight A in defense of B. What created that obligation? Does B own C? After all, forcing C to fight in B's defense, against C's will, is forced labor--i.e., slavery. Or was it A who created this obligation on C's part? In other words, if A decides to maraud the countryside, raping and pillaging, his decision to do so creates an obligation in C to abandon his wife and family, and go a-questing until A's reign of terror is over?

Nonsense. I never used the word "obligation". Your argumentation is useless.

I reject that analysis. If someone out there commits an immoral act, he can't implicitly taint me with the guilt for his crimes.

Ah but there is a difference between being part of an oppression by your passivity and the moral obligation to act upon it. Those are 2 very different things. But you are confusing them for your own reasons.

And similarly, if someone out there has a need or a want, that doesn't imply an obligation on me to fill it.

There are moral reasons I might resist A, or help B, but those reasons are between me and God. If you don't like my handling of the matter, you are perfectly free to count me out of your list of friends--but there is no sound basis for imposing an enforceable legal obligation on me, let alone indict me as an accomplice.

Not helping someone in danger does not make you look good for sure.

If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof rests on you.

But you prove it already! You said you would have the obligation to protect your wife and kid: that is your choice. It is not an obligation. You obligate yourself to do that, and refuse to help others, period. You put a value on your wife and kid, but refuse to acknowledge value on anyone else.

You are misapplying physics to a discussion of ethics. If it will help, I hereby declare that I will always say "aggression," and will never say "force" again.

Hey, you used "force" first:

Blame belongs to anyone who uses coercive force, whether he's rich and mean, or poor and mean.

. But then, it was also used in the definition I provided. Also, if you canot work with any figure of speech, like "A situation of "rest" is a force by it's own weight", maybe we should end the discussion here now.

If you are acting entirely of your free will, then nobody has aggressed against you. Your rights are intact. No wrong of any kind has been committed. That remains true no matter how much people attempt to persuade you to do something, again assuming that no threats of any sort are employed. That's point one: do you agree or disagree with that statement?

But annoying people can interfere with my quality of life. That may not be a right, but I may have to do something if you keep on nagging at me.

Second, if someone is using no aggression, nor threat of physical attack, restraint or other harm against your person or property, then he is committing no crime of any kind. That remains true regardless how many other people might in fact be aggressing against you. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Again, I see nagging as quite bothersome, and I can really decide to act upon it.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Poogy

People rule the world with guns. If you started disobeying the US government, an accountant wouldn't show up with a check. An officer would show up with a gun and handcuffs.

I don't see your point. The officer is not coming at you with a gun to rule you. It's about his self-defense, first and foremost.

Money is indeed influential--if that weren't so, there'd be no point in getting rich, would there?

So you say. But then, having a monopoly probably creates an extreme case of influence...

But that doesn't equate to rulership. If I'm richer than you, and live high on the hog, you would no doubt be envious; it's no fun living low on the hog. But have I harmed you in any way? No, your envy is self-harm. I didn't inflict it upon you.

Why use "envy"? How about buying everything and leave me unable to purchase anything because you now have all the goods? If you buy the river, and forbid me from taking a sip, would that not be a nice case of totalitarianism?

I could probably offer you $1,000,000 to eat a bucket of dirt, worms and all, and you might well do it. But does that make me your ruler? Your lord and master? Apparently you want that million, badly enough that a bucket of dirt doesn't look so bad to you. But you're free to tell me to buzz off, and that my mother wears combat boots. I haven't done anything to you. Your pride is self-harm. of course, I could also pay your next-door neighbor $1,000,000 to make you eat dirt. That's probably what you mean by "ruling the world with money." But it isn't really the money that gives me power over you--it's the gun. If your neighbor is an unarmed weakling, my $1,000,000 still can't make you eat dirt. It's the gun in his hand that makes me powerful.

It's true that rich men hire thugs. It's equally true that thugs usually expend their thuggery in pursuit of wealth. So there's often a correlation between wealth and power. But at the end of the day, it's not the money. It's the guns.

--Poogy.

No. As I demonstrated, the more you have money, the more you can purchase, and keep to yourself.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I never said anything about an obligation to save. You said it.

"if you see injustice around you and are not doing anything, you certainly are a part of the oppression by not doing anything about it." --You

All I am refering to is that inaction is an act of consent to the rules applied to others.

On the contrary, I'm replying that others can't bind me in that fashion by their actions. I have no control over their actions, and I can't be made an accomplice unless I act in some positive way to assist them.

Of course, I am not asking you to tell me your point of view; but your inaction paints you as pretty insensitive to other people's condition, right?

Please keep the matter straight. There are behaviors on my part that justify your shooting me in self defense. There are behaviors on my part that justify reporting me to the authorities, and having me arrested. There are behaviors on my part that justify your avoiding me, and my pastor's lambasting me on Sundays--indeed, no justification is needed, since you're free to choose your friends, and my Pastor is free to write his own sermons.

Conflating those levels of "obligation" is an example of muddy thinking. For example, if I use bad language in your kids hearing, you're justified in asking me to stop, and in avoiding my company. You aren't justified in shooting me in self defense. If I attack you, on the other hand, you are fully justified in shooting me down.

Which brings us to the example of the moment: you now state that if I don't help a person in trouble, I "don't look very good," and I'm "painted as insensitive." The question is, does that justify having me arrested, or even shooting me on the spot in self-defense? The answer is no on both counts: self-defense doesn't apply because I'm not attacking you. And arresting me doesn't apply, because such a law is an example of forced labor, AKA slavery.

The only correct response is for the neighbors to shun me until I leave town in shame and disgrace. If my pastor is worth his salt, he'll make me regret I was born. My butcher should start selling me fatty cuts, and my barber should refuse to cut my hair any more. All of those things are legitimate exercises of each person's rights, without infringing any of mine.

Oh! I see! Other people can be killed, but you will protect your wife and kid?

You're making a hypothetical situation--namely, one in which you face imminent death. It's easy to arouse outrage if I don't help you in that situation. The question is, what exactly are the parameters on the forced labor you propose? If your dog escapes your yard, can I be arrested for not apprehending him immediately and returning him to you? What if he escapes and runs into the road, getting run over by a jeep? Am I guilty for your dog's death?

Or suppose your basement is flooding--can I be arrested if I don't come over and bail? Will there be an exception if my basement is also flooding? In other words, if your basement floods and I don't bail, will police examine my basement, and arrest me if it isn't flooded?

If a drunk crashes into your parked car and damages it, do I need to prove I was unable to see his license plate to avoid arrest? Or is that true only if someone is in the car and gets hurt? If your daughter is necking in the back seat, and I can't see her--but she gets killed--am I guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

I'm interested in your answer. I'll spill the beans, though: the right answer is that a man can't be arrested for such things. If you think he's a selfish, nasty man because he does these things, then you can impose social consequences: you can avoid him, tell him his mother wears combat boots, and tell anyone in town who'll listen what a rotten jerk he is. Some people will do that even if you refuse to help in small ways; others will do it only if you let them down in a serious emergency.

So the principle of saving others is applicable to the people of your choice? But then, is that not true that your wife and kid are individuals in their own rights with the capacity to make their own choice and defend themselves?

You refer to the "principle of saving lives," but I can't tell if you think that's a valid legal principle, or a moral one, or a pragmatic social one. If I don't help my neighbors, they won't help me--and it takes a foolish person to put himself in that position. It clearly is a social principle. It's also a moral one: if I don't help my neighbor, my pastor will blister my ears on Sunday. But what I can't tell is whether you would also call the cops. It looks as if you would.

Most likely you made a choice of saving people from a set of unspoken rules. You call it an obligation; I call it a choice...

Of [i[course[/i] it's a choice! When I say that you can't obligate me to your needs, even dire ones, I'm not advocating that everyone let everyone else drown, starve and burn to death. Indeed, I strongly advocate social consequences for those who do such things. I advocate against legal consequences, because there is no distinction between "good samaritan laws" and (temporary) slavery.

by the same set of rules you use to disregard my argument that being passive can be an act of oppression in itself. But maybe the word "oppression" is inappropriate here. I'll grant you that. Maybe what I meant to say was that you can be complicit to an act of oppression by not acting.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly, as long as the full import of your statement is that folks who stand by and disregard oppression are contemptible. If you go one step further, and advocate that such people be incarcerated or otherwise forcibly punished, I can't follow you. The main reason is precisely what I spelled out above: it's a vaguely defined case of slavery.

Example: when I was finishing my PhD, I tried to trade teaching assignments with another grad student: it would give me M-W-F completely open, so I could stay home and work on my thesis. My commute to school was about an hour in good weather; up to three hours in winter. She replied that she couldn't, which was her right, and proceeded to explain her reason: a morning class forces her to get up, making her more productive. In other words, she wouldn't assist my need, because the inconvenience of setting an alarm clock outweighed my 2-6 hours' driving, three times per week, for three months.

Morally, I was outraged. I still stand aghast at her incredible selfishness. I avoided her after that--I admit it. If I knew her rabbi, I'd have encouraged him to tear her a new one next time she showed up at services. If I were fascistically inclined, I'd have her arrested or otherwise molested. Others would consider that extreme--after all, nobody died, and in retrospect I still managed to finish my PhD.

The point: what gave me a genuine claim on her teaching assignment? Nothing. She was free to agree or to refuse. If she'd refused without explaining, we could have continued as friends even. When she exposed her (narcissistic) line of reasoning, there were social consequences. They might not matter, if I were the only one, but quite a few people imposed similar social consequences over her years in the department. Which is perfectly legitimate.

Ah but there is a difference between being part of an oppression by your passivity and the moral obligation to act upon it. Those are 2 very different things. But you are confusing them for your own reasons.

On the contrary, I am attempting to distinguish them very carefully, and consider "oppression by inactivity" to be completely outside the scope of this discussion. Our last few exchanges have been all about making that distinction, because I can't tell if you make it or not.

But you prove it already! You said you would have the obligation to protect your wife and kid...

A moral obligation, but not a legal one. If I failed to save them when I could have--or even when I couldn't have--there will be serious social consequences: for one thing, no woman in her right mind would marry me. In addition, all the social obligations I mentioned would apply--so strongly so, that I would undoubtedly have little choice but to move far, far away to escape the shame of it all.

that is your choice. It is not an obligation.

Quite right. In particular, I would readily attack a burglar to save my family. If, instead, we were riding in a blimp and one of them fell out, I don't know what I would do: I have a paralyzing fear of heights, for one thing. If someone were clinging desperately to some part of the aircraft, I might or might not actually climb out after them. If they fell through space to their doom, I would probably not jump out after them, though it would be a heroic gesture that would bring tears to people's eyes. It is a choice, not an obligation, just as you say.

I admit to abusing the word "obligation" in that context. Social obligations are "obligations", even though they are not enforced using acts of aggression. It's in that sense that I meant the word.

You obligate yourself to do that, and refuse to help others, period. You put a value on your wife and kid, but refuse to acknowledge value on anyone else.

When I deny the obligation, I am not asserting that I wouldn't help. I am certainly not saying that their lives are valueless. There are cases where I would help, and cases where I wouldn't; among other things, I would probably save my wife from being raped, even if in the process I couldn't save someone else from dying. If social obligations were enforced with physical aggression, I would surely be arrested for that: after all, my wife wouldn't have died; merely been traumatized. And, to return again to the theme of this subthread, I deny the appropriateness of arresting me in that case.

Hey, you used "force" first: . But then, it was also used in the definition I provided.

Exactly! I replied to someone who claimed that money itself constitutes "force", by which the world is ruled. He was dead wrong: the world is ruled by actual physical violence, or the threat of it. Money, like a stick, boxcar or angry rottweiler, is merely a tool that can be used for good or evil. The evil is in the act of physical aggression against another's person or property, period.

The evil is in the act of physical aggression against another's person or property, period.

Also, if you canot work with any figure of speech, like "A situation of "rest" is a force by it's own weight", maybe we should end the discussion here now.

Figures of speech are fine, but in this case the figure of speech expresses a false idea. You are defining something to be evil which doesn't involve actual physical aggression against another's person or property. Thus, it is false. We have many figures of speech that equate persuasion and force, and they all express a dangerous untruth. An untruth that often translates into action, whereby voluntary transactions are prosecuted as if they were assaults, and persuasive people, such as the rich, are treated as criminals by virtue of their "power" of persuasion. Campaign Finance Reform is a good example of this.

Again, I see nagging as quite bothersome, and I can really decide to act upon it.

...or not. Exactly. Nagging isn't "force", even if we tend to perceive it as such. That perception is an artifact of evolution; it isn't real.

--Poogy

[FeLiZeCaT]

I will end our exchange here.

I do not have the time and energy to split hairs any further. Happy posting!

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I don't see your point. The officer is not coming at you with a gun to rule you. It's about his self-defense, first and foremost.

Self-defense is not the correct term here. If I enter your property with the intent of dragging you away against your will, I'm the aggressor. You are within your rights to defend yourself, even using deadly force. If you try to defend yourself and I beat you to the draw, and kill you, then that was murder, not self-defense.

So I repeat: the government doesn't rule you by offering you stuff until you decide freely to do as you're told. It rules you by locking you in a prison, or shooting you if you try to resist. You are ruled by physical force and the thread of physical force.

So you say. But then, having a monopoly probably creates an extreme case of influence...

Fair point. However, if all use of aggression is forbidden, then there's no such thing as a monopoly. There might be only one provider of a good, but nothing stops you from entering the market and competing. The only true "monopolist" is the one who uses aggression to eliminate or otherwise harrass the competition. You can guess where I'm going next: the only monopolist in the US is the government. The government in turn creates monopolies: for example, public utilities were granted local monopolies by government, and anyone else who tried to provide similar services would be arrested.

Why use "envy"? How about buying everything and leave me unable to purchase anything because you now have all the goods? If you buy the river, and forbid me from taking a sip, would that not be a nice case of totalitarianism?

It would not. If I own the river, I own the river. You have options: dig a well; move near a different river; catch rainwater; buy water from me. Note, however, that buying up a whole river is a tall order: in practice, it's vanishingly unlikely ever to happen. There is just such a monopoly, however: many municipalities claim a monopoly on water by forbidding wells and maintaining a government-monopoly water utility. In addition, the federal government claims a monopoly power over all "navigable waterways." As someone who owned a property with a stream barely big enough for a canoe, I'll tell you by experience: you'd be shocked what counts as "navigable".

It's much harder to do that without guns, because you'd have to (1) be filthy rich, (2) see it as in your interests in some way to own the whole river, and (3) persuade everyone on the river to sell you their piece.

There are also interesting side questions there. If you grant (for the sake of argument) that private property is sacrosanct, and that aggression is precisely the dividing line between legal and illegal, there is still an open area of research: what exactly constitutes homesteading? The first owner got his property by homesteading, so this is the core question of all property.

For example, fencing in an area doesn't cut it. I could build a fence around the equator (in theory)--but that doesn't entitle me to kick everyone out of the hemisphere of my choice. So in the case of rivers, building a house on the bank doesn't cut it. Perhaps I'd have to dam the river and install a lock--but if so, it isn't clear how far up- and down-river becomes mine as part of that homestead. Fishing on the river doesn't cut it: that gives me ownership of certain fishing rights, not ownership of the whole thing. Buying both banks also doesn't cut it, if the river is very wide. If it's non-navigable, that might suffice...

All interesting questions.

--Poogy.

[Helmling]

Some people are misunderstanding the nature and history of capitalism. Many--typically these are people who consider themselves conservative in the US--erroniously believe that Capitalism--the economic system of the West--is a natural phenomenon, and is entirely an outgrowth of the natural laws of economics espoused by enlightenment thinkers like Smith.

The reality is that Capitalism is dependent upon heavy government regulation controlling access to and protecting the security of capital. Capitalism requires heavy entitlement for the enfranchised interests, in modern terms this means corporations.

I find it interesting, the poster from Kenya mentioned that corruption had become institutionalized in his country and that had led to increased poverty even as the country undergoes economic growth. If that is the definition of corruption, then what does it say about the US? We have a growing economy--a powerhouse economy--yet we also have millions of Americans living below the poverty line, a minimum wage that hasn't budged in over a decade, a level of real income for middle class Americans that has not risen in a generation, and finally, we have a class of entitled rich who keep getting richer--widening the wealth gap between the average American and the richest five percent dramatically over the last twenty years.

This is not "natural." In a natural economy, wealth does not become this unevenly distributed. Only corruption can bring such disparity. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that it is America which is blighted by "instituionalized" corruption and that corruption is called Capitalism.

I wonder...is this the best we can do? A new serfdom based on debt to corporations and a moneyed elite intertwined with the structures of political power? Given the abject failure of Marxism and the nearly complete regression to the sort of corruption that inspired Marx since the fall of Communism, what's to be done? it seems likely that eventually we will see renewed class conflict in America as the gap between rich and poor widens, but what will come after that revolution? Is there anyway to promote the betterment of the material conditions of a people without allowing portals into exploitive greed for some?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Poogy

Please complete that thought. Are you saying that not hiring you is therefore an act of aggression against you?

The problem is that you cannot argue from a "status quo" position, since in reality there is no limit to 'free will'. In the end what we are talking about are certain impediments to the exercise thereof.

We are not talking about debt here, but about a system of 'blackmail' (or in essence corruption) which forces everybody to act.

Objectivism fails not only because it is a system which essentially hinges on extortion, but also, because it presuppose some kind of 'unbiased', level, playing field from which people freely engage in exchange. This is almost never the case.

Again, it isn't about the person 'hiring' (since this is, as far as I can tell, always an act of free will), it's about the person who is willing to trade his/her skills, experience and time for whatever they need to survive. In order to call a system 'anarchic' this person would have to engage in every exchange at his/her free will.

[Poogy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

The problem is that you cannot argue from a "status quo" position, since in reality there is no limit to 'free will'. In the end what we are talking about are certain impediments to the exercise thereof.

You'll have to explain what that statement is supposed to mean. That and the following sentence don't appear to mean anything, AFAICT.

Objectivism fails not only because it is a system which essentially hinges on extortion...

To discuss objectivism, you'll have to find a Randroid to argue with; I can't speak for them. Objectivism is emphatically not anarcho-capitalism. That said, you've used the word "extortion" twice now, and it's simply far from clear what that's supposed to mean.

I suspect that you mean, if I have a factory, and you are broke and hungry, then by offering you a job I'm engaging in extortion. That makes no sense: if I said, "To spare you the pain of my 'extortion', I will not make you any sort of job offer," you would still consider me to be somehow your oppressor. But if I'm your oppressor for not offering a job, and I'm an oppressor for offering you one, then what does that mean? It means that I not only owe you a job, but in fact I owe you some high wage that you have in mind.

Which brings us back to the original question: how did I end up owing you this? If there are 50 employers in town, do we all owe you $50K per year? Or just one of us? If so, which one, and why? And how did we end up in your debt like that? Do we also have prior claims on your stuff, or do only you have prior claims on our stuff? For example, if I'm hungry, can I go into your house and make myself a sandwich?

In order to call a system 'anarchic' this person would have to engage in every exchange at his/her free will.

Yes. But claiming that the job is "needed to survive" doesn't negate free will. You seem to think otherwise.

--Poogy

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Poogy

You'll have to explain what that statement is supposed to mean.

It means that in order to 'survive' I might be compelled to do something against my will (i.e. do something I otherwise wouldn't do). This, in essence, is what capitalism does. Through the virtue of ownership, you 'force' other people to interact with you anytime they come in contact with your property (not literally of course, but philosophically).

This is simply an impediment to free will.

Originally Posted by Poogy

I suspect that you mean, if I have a factory, and you are broke and hungry, then by offering you a job I'm engaging in extortion.

No, I'm saying that if you have a factory, and I didn't want to associate with you in any shape or form even if I'm 'broke and hungry', there shouldn't be any 'push' for me to want to do so (again, in a system based on anarchy).

The argument of 'being forced to do something' doesn't fly here, because essentially we are only talking about the measure of force. But it isn't about the employer 'owing' anything at all.

Originally Posted by Poogy

Yes. But claiming that the job is "needed to survive" doesn't negate free will. You seem to think otherwise.

No, what I'm claiming is, that in order to consider any system of exchange 'anarchic', all acts that lead up to this exchange must be done 'of free will'