6 ms·

>> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? .. > Yes, that's my point. Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a

>> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? .. > Yes, that's my point. Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point. > But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it. Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation. But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything. > But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making. A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people. Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point." Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence. 'Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation. But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.' This really couldn't be more handwavy. I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society. I also think it's clear that an ability to solve collective action problems is necessary and that massive concentration of power is a problem. My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex. "A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people." Again, your language is absurd. Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved - as normal people would use the word, not something you can technically force into place by ignoring important aspects of what people usually mean when they say enslavement - or gtfo. A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check and that initiation of violence to a minimum, but monopoly is tremendously better than allowing competitive violence - monopolies under-produce. "Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it." How do they pick which arbiter to turn to, if they haven't had dealings with each other before? If it's always a certain arbiter in a certain area, that's just the existing court system.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence. I got it just fine. But even if the laptop weren't my property (by social convention or otherwise), demanding it back would not constitute extortion without a threat. Either way, I still don't see the point. > This really couldn't be more handwavy Sure, but I didn't mean to "prove" anything to you. > I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too. > If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. Well that sure is fucked up. > My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex. Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway. > Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape. Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free. > A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied? > We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no. I'll give up now, at least for today. Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it.

dllthomas 13y ago

"Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point." Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence. 'Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation. But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.' This really couldn't be more handwavy. I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society. I also think it's clear that an ability to solve collective action problems is necessary and that massive concentration of power is a problem. My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex. "A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people." Again, your language is absurd. Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved - as normal people would use the word, not something you can technically force into place by ignoring important aspects of what people usually mean when they say enslavement - or gtfo. A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check and that initiation of violence to a minimum, but monopoly is tremendously better than allowing competitive violence - monopolies under-produce. "Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it." How do they pick which arbiter to turn to, if they haven't had dealings with each other before? If it's always a certain arbiter in a certain area, that's just the existing court system.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence. I got it just fine. But even if the laptop weren't my property (by social convention or otherwise), demanding it back would not constitute extortion without a threat. Either way, I still don't see the point. > This really couldn't be more handwavy Sure, but I didn't mean to "prove" anything to you. > I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too. > If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. Well that sure is fucked up. > My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex. Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway. > Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape. Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free. > A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied? > We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no. I'll give up now, at least for today. Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it.