4 ms·

Ultimately, all the rest of the threats have to be supported by the one at the bottom, which is death. Prisons can be overthrown by a rebellion, and the only wa

by benaiah 13y ago

Ultimately, all the rest of the threats have to be supported by the one at the bottom, which is death. Prisons can be overthrown by a rebellion, and the only way to stop a rebellion that won't negotiate is with deadly force. The reason I and so many others dislike government intervention so strongly is for this very reason - it is the one organization which we allow to police all others with our collective power of death, and its role should thus be as small as possible in order to avoid abusing that awful responsibility. As for toxic vs. unhealthy food, I'm not a nutritionist or biologist, so I won't attempt a scientific distinction, but essentially someone selling drain cleaner and saying it's drinkable is wrong, while someone selling soda and saying it's drinkable isn't. A healthy person can have a soda without negative health effects - those only show up if you drink it excessively. Drain cleaner is enormously damaging to your body period, no matter your health or whether you drink it regularly or not.

nbouscal 13y ago
> A healthy person can have a soda without negative health effects That's simply untrue. The standard recommendation from nutritionists as to the healthy number of sodas to drink is zero. That's why I asked the question: the reality is that the difference between 'unhealthy' and 'toxic' is simply one of scale. Yes, clearly, drain cleaner is on one end of that scale, and soda is on another, and alcohol is somewhere near the middle. Trying to act as though there is a clear dichotomy, though, is misleading. The reason that you and so many others who refer to taxation as threat of death are a pain to have discussions with is that you argue in such a way as to completely ignore reality. Yes, in your hypothetical theoretical worlds, there exists a narrative in which someone resisting taxation would proceed to foment a rebellion which would end in that person's death. That being the case has absolutely no place in a rational discussion of government, and simply serves to distract us from real practical issues that are worth discussing.
- benaiah 13y ago
  You're right - the threat-of-death argument is not a primarily practical one, though I think it's far more practical than you give it credit. Al Capone didn't go to prison for tax evasion out of respect for the courts. But that's not the main point. It's a philosophical argument. You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", and I would politely reply that it's impossible. Whatever your idea of the meaning and purpose of government is will have fundamental implications as to what you advocate it does practically. It's not irrational to speak of the fundamentals, it's irrational to ignore them. Our philosophy is how we understand reality, and I argue that a philosophy of government that does not take into account the basic fact that they are the one organization that we view morally able to take a life is a deeply flawed and heavily unrealistic one. As for the soda thing - sure, it's a matter of scale. Just like ph is a matter of scale. ph 6.5 is pleasantly acidic, while ph 1 will burn the flesh off your body. There are definite points where you can say "this is toxic" or "this is just unhealthy". That's where you start getting into judgment calls, made by humans. The law would of course be more nuanced than this, but ultimately it comes down to that. But it's important to note that none of it is forbidden, and if a person looks at the ingredient list (again, fraud is still illegal) and decides they want to drink it anyway, it's nobody else's business to force them not to. (A concerned talk by a close friend or relative would, of course, still be in order). This idea of it all coming back to human judgment is, incidentally, why I believe a utopia is impossible in the current state of affairs. I have an essentially pessimistic view of human nature as it is at present (I have religious views which are positive on human nature in the long run, as it is eventually redeemed. I don't want to argue those right now, as it won't get us anywhere). But I do believe that we shouldn't give up on finding a better system just because we can't find a perfect one. Saying drain cleaner is edible is downright murderous. I don't believe the same of soda, regardless of what your unsourced "standard nutritionists" think. It definitely isn't true of water. We have to draw some lines somewhere. Will this be abused? Of course. But it has far less impact, and thus far less opportunity for corruption, than our current system.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    > You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", and I would politely reply that it's impossible. Obviously you can't divorce your philosophy from your views on issues insomuch as those views derive from your philosophy. That doesn't mean that you have to regress every single discussion to philosophizing by using hyperbole such that the discussion of the issues is obstructed by the discussion of your personal philosophy. The vast majority of people do not equate taxation with threat of death, so every time that is brought into the conversation, it completely derails the conversation and makes it unproductive. And no, it is not a more practical argument than I give it credit for. It is a slippery slope argument at best, and that is being exceedingly charitable. Back to the issue at hand, the unhealthy/toxic distinction was just to try to get you to rethink your assumptions (doesn't seem to have worked). The real objection I have is the one you chose not to respond to: drastically unhealthy choices by other citizens are born by everyone else through increased costs of health care and insurance. Inevitably your response is that forcing anyone to pay for the health care of anyone else is an act of violence and therefore not permissible according to your libertarian ethics, but that means that we have to let people simply fall over dead if they can't pay for treatment, which in the opinion of most is a far greater moral wrong. If I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize in advance and am very curious to hear how you reconcile this problem.

by benaiah 13y ago

nbouscal 13y ago

> A healthy person can have a soda without negative health effects That's simply untrue. The standard recommendation from nutritionists as to the healthy number of sodas to drink is zero. That's why I asked the question: the reality is that the difference between 'unhealthy' and 'toxic' is simply one of scale. Yes, clearly, drain cleaner is on one end of that scale, and soda is on another, and alcohol is somewhere near the middle. Trying to act as though there is a clear dichotomy, though, is misleading. The reason that you and so many others who refer to taxation as threat of death are a pain to have discussions with is that you argue in such a way as to completely ignore reality. Yes, in your hypothetical theoretical worlds, there exists a narrative in which someone resisting taxation would proceed to foment a rebellion which would end in that person's death. That being the case has absolutely no place in a rational discussion of government, and simply serves to distract us from real practical issues that are worth discussing.

benaiah 13y ago
You're right - the threat-of-death argument is not a primarily practical one, though I think it's far more practical than you give it credit. Al Capone didn't go to prison for tax evasion out of respect for the courts. But that's not the main point. It's a philosophical argument. You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", and I would politely reply that it's impossible. Whatever your idea of the meaning and purpose of government is will have fundamental implications as to what you advocate it does practically. It's not irrational to speak of the fundamentals, it's irrational to ignore them. Our philosophy is how we understand reality, and I argue that a philosophy of government that does not take into account the basic fact that they are the one organization that we view morally able to take a life is a deeply flawed and heavily unrealistic one. As for the soda thing - sure, it's a matter of scale. Just like ph is a matter of scale. ph 6.5 is pleasantly acidic, while ph 1 will burn the flesh off your body. There are definite points where you can say "this is toxic" or "this is just unhealthy". That's where you start getting into judgment calls, made by humans. The law would of course be more nuanced than this, but ultimately it comes down to that. But it's important to note that none of it is forbidden, and if a person looks at the ingredient list (again, fraud is still illegal) and decides they want to drink it anyway, it's nobody else's business to force them not to. (A concerned talk by a close friend or relative would, of course, still be in order). This idea of it all coming back to human judgment is, incidentally, why I believe a utopia is impossible in the current state of affairs. I have an essentially pessimistic view of human nature as it is at present (I have religious views which are positive on human nature in the long run, as it is eventually redeemed. I don't want to argue those right now, as it won't get us anywhere). But I do believe that we shouldn't give up on finding a better system just because we can't find a perfect one. Saying drain cleaner is edible is downright murderous. I don't believe the same of soda, regardless of what your unsourced "standard nutritionists" think. It definitely isn't true of water. We have to draw some lines somewhere. Will this be abused? Of course. But it has far less impact, and thus far less opportunity for corruption, than our current system.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  > You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", and I would politely reply that it's impossible. Obviously you can't divorce your philosophy from your views on issues insomuch as those views derive from your philosophy. That doesn't mean that you have to regress every single discussion to philosophizing by using hyperbole such that the discussion of the issues is obstructed by the discussion of your personal philosophy. The vast majority of people do not equate taxation with threat of death, so every time that is brought into the conversation, it completely derails the conversation and makes it unproductive. And no, it is not a more practical argument than I give it credit for. It is a slippery slope argument at best, and that is being exceedingly charitable. Back to the issue at hand, the unhealthy/toxic distinction was just to try to get you to rethink your assumptions (doesn't seem to have worked). The real objection I have is the one you chose not to respond to: drastically unhealthy choices by other citizens are born by everyone else through increased costs of health care and insurance. Inevitably your response is that forcing anyone to pay for the health care of anyone else is an act of violence and therefore not permissible according to your libertarian ethics, but that means that we have to let people simply fall over dead if they can't pay for treatment, which in the opinion of most is a far greater moral wrong. If I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize in advance and am very curious to hear how you reconcile this problem.