4 ms·

It is only appropriate if you cannot conceive government actions that have nothing to do with force :)

by janimo 8y ago

fallous 8y ago
And what actions would those be that do not, eventually, rely upon force?
- forkandwait 8y ago
  Providing subsidized college education, for example?
  - fallous 8y ago
    And that money comes from where?
    - maccam94 8y ago
      Citizens, based upon the social contract.
      - pharrington 8y ago
        The specific citizens in that case are those that run banks, and contracts provided by banks are backed by governmental laws.
      - fallous 8y ago
        Hobbes recognized that the social contract is enforced by the sovereign, otherwise we have anarchy. That good is derived from such a contract does not mean that it is absent force... it's necessary. It is absurdity is to try and hide from that fact just because we like the initiative or results.
- bshepard 8y ago
  Whether or not things eventually rely on force seems like more of a metaphysical question than a political one; the resources spent on the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex could have been (could still be) diverted towards raising the living standards of the poorest, ensuring a basic security net for all, providing decommodified healthcare and education. It is interesting to think about why this choice wasn't made, why it doesn't get made.
  - SllX 8y ago
    Never-mind the military-industrial complex. A nation-state is in itself a monopoly on sanctioned-violence expressed through your local police department or standing Army. Property rights, human rights, taxes, and everything funded by government revenue is only possible because of the guys with the guns projecting government Force. This isn't a metaphysical question, this is literally how modern governments are able to exist and operate at scale and how your dollar bills or local equivalent have any value at all.
  - fallous 8y ago
    It isn't metaphysical, it is purely a practical observation. How do you propose to "raising living standards" and all the other offerings using government but not using force?
    - bshepard 8y ago
      By transferring government resources from the perpetuation of force (military industrial complex/prison archipelago) towards the social expenses mentioned above. This would involve a diminution of force, and an increase in cooperative social relations.
      - maccam94 8y ago
        I think you're not catching what fallous is saying, because s/he's using libertarian vernacular. Libertarians view taxation as force, because if you don't pay the tax the police can forcefully take your property/valuables. IMO this view is shortsighted and doesn't properly assess the advantages to generally granting the government a monopoly on the use of force.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  All laws rely ultimately on force. Would you call policing a 'war on crime'? The enforcement of contracts a 'war on fraud'? The collection of taxes a 'war on free-riding'? The deficiency of 'war' as the correct metaphor here is that war implies much more than simply 'force'; war has a particularly structure, in part: 1. It is a conflict between distinct groups 2. It is the exception and can be distinguished against 'peace' 3. Victory, or defeat, is possible (in ancient times, where warfare was common and vicious, the literal elimination of entire polities was very common) None of these things are true of the 'war on poverty' or 'war on cancer', for example.
  - fallous 8y ago
    Unfortunately we do hear the phrase "war on crime (usually meaning violence or drugs)," but policing is the enforcement of all laws and thus lacks the targeting required to be a "war" in a meaningful sense. The same with contracts and taxes, although both have suffered their own specific "war" monikers on particular behaviors in the past. A war does indeed have a structure, but I'd disagree with your list a bit. Your point 1 is correct, but "groups" is a fungible category and we've certainly seen wars that included the attempted destruction of both groups of people and concepts (history, religion, ideology, etc). 2. Unfortunately history argues that peace is the exception rather than war. There are plenty of wars occurring right now in which we have no participation, nevermind those that we do. 3. Plenty of wars ended with no victory or defeat, and it's certainly arguable that in some cases neither was realistically possible. I specifically left out the War on Cancer because a good portion of it was under the aegis of private parties, not that it much mattered when it came to the failure of results. They originators believed that Cancer was a single entity that one muster all efforts against... they were wrong. That the wars waged were wrong-headed in both conception and means is pretty obvious, the means simply ensured that the consequences would be much closer to actual war.

It is only appropriate if you cannot conceive government actions that have nothing to do with force :)

by janimo 8y ago

It is only appropriate if you cannot conceive government actions that have nothing to do with force :)

fallous 8y ago

And what actions would those be that do not, eventually, rely upon force?

forkandwait 8y ago
Providing subsidized college education, for example?
- fallous 8y ago
  And that money comes from where?
  - maccam94 8y ago
    Citizens, based upon the social contract.
    - pharrington 8y ago
      The specific citizens in that case are those that run banks, and contracts provided by banks are backed by governmental laws.
    - fallous 8y ago
      Hobbes recognized that the social contract is enforced by the sovereign, otherwise we have anarchy. That good is derived from such a contract does not mean that it is absent force... it's necessary. It is absurdity is to try and hide from that fact just because we like the initiative or results.
bshepard 8y ago
Whether or not things eventually rely on force seems like more of a metaphysical question than a political one; the resources spent on the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex could have been (could still be) diverted towards raising the living standards of the poorest, ensuring a basic security net for all, providing decommodified healthcare and education. It is interesting to think about why this choice wasn't made, why it doesn't get made.
- SllX 8y ago
  Never-mind the military-industrial complex. A nation-state is in itself a monopoly on sanctioned-violence expressed through your local police department or standing Army. Property rights, human rights, taxes, and everything funded by government revenue is only possible because of the guys with the guns projecting government Force. This isn't a metaphysical question, this is literally how modern governments are able to exist and operate at scale and how your dollar bills or local equivalent have any value at all.
- fallous 8y ago
  It isn't metaphysical, it is purely a practical observation. How do you propose to "raising living standards" and all the other offerings using government but not using force?
  - bshepard 8y ago
    By transferring government resources from the perpetuation of force (military industrial complex/prison archipelago) towards the social expenses mentioned above. This would involve a diminution of force, and an increase in cooperative social relations.
    - maccam94 8y ago
      I think you're not catching what fallous is saying, because s/he's using libertarian vernacular. Libertarians view taxation as force, because if you don't pay the tax the police can forcefully take your property/valuables. IMO this view is shortsighted and doesn't properly assess the advantages to generally granting the government a monopoly on the use of force.
smallnamespace 8y ago
All laws rely ultimately on force. Would you call policing a 'war on crime'? The enforcement of contracts a 'war on fraud'? The collection of taxes a 'war on free-riding'? The deficiency of 'war' as the correct metaphor here is that war implies much more than simply 'force'; war has a particularly structure, in part: 1. It is a conflict between distinct groups 2. It is the exception and can be distinguished against 'peace' 3. Victory, or defeat, is possible (in ancient times, where warfare was common and vicious, the literal elimination of entire polities was very common) None of these things are true of the 'war on poverty' or 'war on cancer', for example.
- fallous 8y ago
  Unfortunately we do hear the phrase "war on crime (usually meaning violence or drugs)," but policing is the enforcement of all laws and thus lacks the targeting required to be a "war" in a meaningful sense. The same with contracts and taxes, although both have suffered their own specific "war" monikers on particular behaviors in the past. A war does indeed have a structure, but I'd disagree with your list a bit. Your point 1 is correct, but "groups" is a fungible category and we've certainly seen wars that included the attempted destruction of both groups of people and concepts (history, religion, ideology, etc). 2. Unfortunately history argues that peace is the exception rather than war. There are plenty of wars occurring right now in which we have no participation, nevermind those that we do. 3. Plenty of wars ended with no victory or defeat, and it's certainly arguable that in some cases neither was realistically possible. I specifically left out the War on Cancer because a good portion of it was under the aegis of private parties, not that it much mattered when it came to the failure of results. They originators believed that Cancer was a single entity that one muster all efforts against... they were wrong. That the wars waged were wrong-headed in both conception and means is pretty obvious, the means simply ensured that the consequences would be much closer to actual war.