3 ms·

Criminality is defined by the law (i.e. government) so of course criminal pursuits are distinct from government ones: criminal pursuits are those pursuits the g

by wfo 11y ago

Criminality is defined by the law (i.e. government) so of course criminal pursuits are distinct from government ones: criminal pursuits are those pursuits the government doesn't approve of. This isn't a conservative or liberal worldview, it is fact and what the words mean. Whether or not this distinction is legitimate and meaningful is another debate. And it seems you're conflating your economic system with our government; the society we have is because our government is toothless and unable to take real action, we are subject to the brutal whims of capitalism. Every time someone suggests we wield the power of our government to better our society it's decried as "socialist" and fails. So with effective government effectively banned by conservatives, we are left with ineffective government. Which gives conservatives more ammunition to ban any remaining government. And you seem to wholly omit the consent of the governed; perhaps you reject it as a principle, and perhaps you simply don't wish to acknowledge its existence. In the first case, you should be aware your position is an extremist ideological one and shared by almost no-one outside of academic philosophy. In the second, this is a serious omission since it is the obvious counterpoint to your entire argument above.

pharrington 11y ago
I still don't understand what it means to have consent without having similar power to the agency you're consenting to. I consent to someone who asks me at gunpoint to strip and get on my knees, just as much as I consent to something that will lock me in a cage if I don't give them a portion of my income, just as much as I consent to be ruled by multi-millionaire X instead of multi-millionaire Y. What needs to be understood is that consent is not always possible. That's fine! But we can't reasonably discuss people's relation with society until we stop lying about the scope of individual choice. Your criminality point is not meaningful; the initial point was about the societal effects of actions. Governments and government officials also go against their own laws all the time.
- michaelt 11y ago
  I think the people who believe we consent to being governed think the consent happens at the level of 'society'. I mean, obviously the police and courts wouldn't be much use if criminals could just choose not to consent to being arrested or tried! A person who believed that stuff might say people implicitly consent to the status quo when they don't fight against it. You might dislike the two-party system, but could you get 5% of the population to dash off a quick e-mail to their representative? Could you get 10% of the population to choose who to vote for with that as the deciding issue? Could you get 20% of the population to donate $2,000 to a PAC campaigning on the issue? Could you get 40% of the population to buy a rifle and fight in a revolutionary war? If you can't do any of these things, doesn't that mean people are happy with things as they are? Personally I've always been a bit sceptical about that argument, due to the obvious status quo bias.
- wfo 11y ago
  Consent of the governed is a specific phrase that means something specific. Consent here doesn't refer to the individual libertarian definition of consent, but rather a broader use of the word. For society to function we need a government, and all people benefit from society functioning and therefore government and so we agree to give certain people power to make decisions and do things no private individual would ever be allowed to do. In exchange the government is responsible to the people, through elections, referendums, protests, general dissatisfaction, and generally tries to take actions which are fair and in the best interest of society and the people. Of course sometimes the government isn't responsible enough to the people, and sometimes the government doesn't quite take actions that are fair and in the best interest of society; no system is perfect, but that's the principle upon which our government and all modern democratic governments are based. We can discuss all day whether or not it's currently working but that's not what you asked about. You can vote out a bad government official who wields power unfairly. If it's a bad CEO, well, you can sit back and pray to Ayn Rand that our lord and savior "the market" punishes him for his choices one day though you know chances are he'll be rewarded.
grandalf 11y ago
I'll focus on the consent of the governed in my reply, but happy to elaborate my argument about the other points if you want. In a country with advanced propaganda techniques and several extremely well-funded intelligence organizations (foreign ops and domestic secret police), consent is an interesting word. I think the more relevant thing to measure is dissent. It's missing. There is a constant fray on cable news on which actors make ideological pronouncements about everything from moral issues to the dresses worn by the first lady. They stay strongly in character and gather followings of people who find such content entertaining. Then there is the serious news in which the overriding theme is the legitimacy of government institutions and the subtle bashing of other nations and foreign institutions and foreign ways of life. Barely half of Americans vote, and nearly half pay no income tax whatsoever. Such apathy and lack of dissent is a remarkable accomplishment. Many Americans think it doesn't matter which of the two parties they vote for, and they are right.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Your comment completely ignores reality and instead pushes a weird propaganda which equates liberal democracy with totalitarianism. I wonder what agenda you're really pushing.
- wfo 11y ago
  I think your general critique of American political culture and the state of affairs is pretty spot on. As it turns out of course as in every case consent is a slippery concept to grasp but the point we are getting at here is that it simply isn't that bad yet. The government is functional and generally it does what it's supposed to do. People have normal lives. Egypt had well-funded intelligence organizations and domestic secret police. The egyptians were perfectly capable of expressing the fact that they did not consent to be governed. They rioted. People generally care about their daily lives. As long as their daily lives aren't interrupted and they can live happily and get most of the things they need they might complain about stuff but they won't REALLY refuse to be governed. But they could, of course. Americans just choose not to. Partially that's I think a change in the American character: we are economically driven now, not driven by principles. We don't riot and kill people because of a tax. We're pretty far away from Bastille day. We care about buying a TV and getting a job to get out of debt and putting food on the table. Until those things are threatened we will consent to be governed; all of the threats are abstract and for all intents and purposes don't really exist in a tangible way for most people. I'm not sure if it's sad or not but it's the state of things; we consent to be governed by not rioting and burning down government buildings.

by wfo 11y ago

pharrington 11y ago

I still don't understand what it means to have consent without having similar power to the agency you're consenting to. I consent to someone who asks me at gunpoint to strip and get on my knees, just as much as I consent to something that will lock me in a cage if I don't give them a portion of my income, just as much as I consent to be ruled by multi-millionaire X instead of multi-millionaire Y. What needs to be understood is that consent is not always possible. That's fine! But we can't reasonably discuss people's relation with society until we stop lying about the scope of individual choice. Your criminality point is not meaningful; the initial point was about the societal effects of actions. Governments and government officials also go against their own laws all the time.

michaelt 11y ago
I think the people who believe we consent to being governed think the consent happens at the level of 'society'. I mean, obviously the police and courts wouldn't be much use if criminals could just choose not to consent to being arrested or tried! A person who believed that stuff might say people implicitly consent to the status quo when they don't fight against it. You might dislike the two-party system, but could you get 5% of the population to dash off a quick e-mail to their representative? Could you get 10% of the population to choose who to vote for with that as the deciding issue? Could you get 20% of the population to donate $2,000 to a PAC campaigning on the issue? Could you get 40% of the population to buy a rifle and fight in a revolutionary war? If you can't do any of these things, doesn't that mean people are happy with things as they are? Personally I've always been a bit sceptical about that argument, due to the obvious status quo bias.
wfo 11y ago
Consent of the governed is a specific phrase that means something specific. Consent here doesn't refer to the individual libertarian definition of consent, but rather a broader use of the word. For society to function we need a government, and all people benefit from society functioning and therefore government and so we agree to give certain people power to make decisions and do things no private individual would ever be allowed to do. In exchange the government is responsible to the people, through elections, referendums, protests, general dissatisfaction, and generally tries to take actions which are fair and in the best interest of society and the people. Of course sometimes the government isn't responsible enough to the people, and sometimes the government doesn't quite take actions that are fair and in the best interest of society; no system is perfect, but that's the principle upon which our government and all modern democratic governments are based. We can discuss all day whether or not it's currently working but that's not what you asked about. You can vote out a bad government official who wields power unfairly. If it's a bad CEO, well, you can sit back and pray to Ayn Rand that our lord and savior "the market" punishes him for his choices one day though you know chances are he'll be rewarded.

grandalf 11y ago

I'll focus on the consent of the governed in my reply, but happy to elaborate my argument about the other points if you want. In a country with advanced propaganda techniques and several extremely well-funded intelligence organizations (foreign ops and domestic secret police), consent is an interesting word. I think the more relevant thing to measure is dissent. It's missing. There is a constant fray on cable news on which actors make ideological pronouncements about everything from moral issues to the dresses worn by the first lady. They stay strongly in character and gather followings of people who find such content entertaining. Then there is the serious news in which the overriding theme is the legitimacy of government institutions and the subtle bashing of other nations and foreign institutions and foreign ways of life. Barely half of Americans vote, and nearly half pay no income tax whatsoever. Such apathy and lack of dissent is a remarkable accomplishment. Many Americans think it doesn't matter which of the two parties they vote for, and they are right.

cbd1984 11y ago
Your comment completely ignores reality and instead pushes a weird propaganda which equates liberal democracy with totalitarianism. I wonder what agenda you're really pushing.
wfo 11y ago
I think your general critique of American political culture and the state of affairs is pretty spot on. As it turns out of course as in every case consent is a slippery concept to grasp but the point we are getting at here is that it simply isn't that bad yet. The government is functional and generally it does what it's supposed to do. People have normal lives. Egypt had well-funded intelligence organizations and domestic secret police. The egyptians were perfectly capable of expressing the fact that they did not consent to be governed. They rioted. People generally care about their daily lives. As long as their daily lives aren't interrupted and they can live happily and get most of the things they need they might complain about stuff but they won't REALLY refuse to be governed. But they could, of course. Americans just choose not to. Partially that's I think a change in the American character: we are economically driven now, not driven by principles. We don't riot and kill people because of a tax. We're pretty far away from Bastille day. We care about buying a TV and getting a job to get out of debt and putting food on the table. Until those things are threatened we will consent to be governed; all of the threats are abstract and for all intents and purposes don't really exist in a tangible way for most people. I'm not sure if it's sad or not but it's the state of things; we consent to be governed by not rioting and burning down government buildings.