4 ms·

Your philosophical views are very extreme. No coercion, ever? Then there's no role for government, as the government exists to "guarantee" things (notably, li

Your philosophical views are very extreme. No coercion, ever? Then there's no role for government, as the government exists to "guarantee" things (notably, life and liberty). That is anarchism, not libertarianism. I'm curious -- when you simulate your ideal society in your mind, at what kind of stable state do you arrive? I understand and sympathize with some of the same philosophical _first principles_ you do, but when I play it out in my mind I don't get to a world in which I'd like to live. In fact, the world I end up with is one in which life and liberty are routinely and casually stolen from others -- not by a state, necessarily, but by other forms of powerful self-interested organizations. Gangs, mafias, private armies. Coercive forces. Of course there will be positively intentioned organizations to attempt to counteract these coercive forces. Unfortunately, they won't be able to compete because they suffer from a huge handicap: they lack the ability to coerce others to their cause. So that's where it ends up in my mind. Epic failure, for the exact reason marxist Capitalism would fail: human self-interest. Where does it end up in yours? If you've played this out and it end somewhere good, I think you must have a very positive and optimistic view of humanity.

burntsushi 11y ago
I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. So, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? I'm no sociological genius; I have no answers or special insights that you probably haven't already read. The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. > Gangs, mafias, private armies. Coercive forces. Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. It may very well be the case that a "free" society can only exist when that society embraces it. Certainly, ripping government out of an existing society doesn't make any sense and I don't see how that could end in a desirable outcome without a lot of pain in the middle---which I cannot advocate. My own personal hope is that it occurs peacefully over the course of slow cultural and societal evolution; probably spanning centuries. For me personally, I am rather content with saying "I don't know." This does not change my ethics.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Huh? Why so defensive? What am I hoping to achieve? This is a discussion forum.. I'm hoping to achieve discussion. I'm not trying to change your ethics. I don't think I already know your answer, and I wouldn't have a "rebuttal" since there's nothing to rebut? I wasn't aware we were engaged in a debate. I was simply asking where you think society would end up if we were to adopt your philosophy. I wasn't making a value judgment about what I imagined you'd say. When I explained that my "simulation" led to a shitty place, I wasn't presuming you'd agree it was shitty, and I wasn't asserting my simulation is likely to be more right than anyone else's. Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    > Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong. Ironically, this is how I felt when I read your initial comment. These types of conversations are always easier for me in person.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. > The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. Jesus! Even you don't know the answer to the question, why on Earth do you think we already know the answer? > Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. Nice. But in practice - would you be willing to coerce a mafia member if a friend asked you to? Or if your child would be threatened by gang? Fear from self-preservation aside (we all have it) - does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party?

burntsushi 11y ago

I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. So, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? I'm no sociological genius; I have no answers or special insights that you probably haven't already read. The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. > Gangs, mafias, private armies. Coercive forces. Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. It may very well be the case that a "free" society can only exist when that society embraces it. Certainly, ripping government out of an existing society doesn't make any sense and I don't see how that could end in a desirable outcome without a lot of pain in the middle---which I cannot advocate. My own personal hope is that it occurs peacefully over the course of slow cultural and societal evolution; probably spanning centuries. For me personally, I am rather content with saying "I don't know." This does not change my ethics.

solipsism 11y ago
Huh? Why so defensive? What am I hoping to achieve? This is a discussion forum.. I'm hoping to achieve discussion. I'm not trying to change your ethics. I don't think I already know your answer, and I wouldn't have a "rebuttal" since there's nothing to rebut? I wasn't aware we were engaged in a debate. I was simply asking where you think society would end up if we were to adopt your philosophy. I wasn't making a value judgment about what I imagined you'd say. When I explained that my "simulation" led to a shitty place, I wasn't presuming you'd agree it was shitty, and I wasn't asserting my simulation is likely to be more right than anyone else's. Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong. Ironically, this is how I felt when I read your initial comment. These types of conversations are always easier for me in person.
asgard1024 11y ago
> I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. > The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. Jesus! Even you don't know the answer to the question, why on Earth do you think we already know the answer? > Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. Nice. But in practice - would you be willing to coerce a mafia member if a friend asked you to? Or if your child would be threatened by gang? Fear from self-preservation aside (we all have it) - does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party?