5 ms·

I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). K

I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). Keep in mind what you're doing with that message is trying to discredit a whole school of thought by throwing ad hominem arguments. You are saying those like me have an advanced case of a cultish disease, and that we are selfish and cynical. You're entitled to those opinions, but this strategy of trying to taint a philosophy by attacking its messengers does not work on free thinkers like me that actually try to focus on arguments. You're distracting and not helping the discussion. This is still an open discussion in philosophy and you're welcome to participate if you can argue with civility.

cbd1984 12y ago
> I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.
- innguest 12y ago
  "The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. So... are you an anarchist, or just a big fan of small governments? :) I ask because I've seen people who essentially define anarchism as "direct democracy in a town hall model", which is still a government, but try getting them to see that. Anyway, one problem with this approach is the small government that isn't as small as your government and decides to take you over by force. And then keeps going until it's a large government again, and nobody who disagrees too loudly is left to complain. Another problem is, well, what if one small government isn't expansionist, but is basically North Korea? Nobody leaves alive, nobody complains and lives, and nobody but the oligarchs has a say in government. > If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. How about this: Some people like you, but not enough. If they strike, or demonstrate, my police forces kill them and everyone else goes back to work, suitably chastened. My company takes a small hit, but compliance among the workforce is more important to my bottom line than not killing your supporters. Also: Your plan to scrape up enough resources to leave is overly-optimistic, especially given how much of a following the KKK had in some towns in the 1920s. Do you know what a "sundown town" was? > I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :) I do appreciate your honesty. I'm also trying to be honest in this, and to explain myself well. My core concern is this: We tried it your way, more or less, back in the Gilded Age, a time of big companies largely untroubled by governmental regulations of any kind and local governments largely left alone by state and Federal actions. Why do you think going back to that would not cause a return to the serious social and economic problems the Gilded Age had?

cbd1984 12y ago

> I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.

innguest 12y ago
"The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. So... are you an anarchist, or just a big fan of small governments? :) I ask because I've seen people who essentially define anarchism as "direct democracy in a town hall model", which is still a government, but try getting them to see that. Anyway, one problem with this approach is the small government that isn't as small as your government and decides to take you over by force. And then keeps going until it's a large government again, and nobody who disagrees too loudly is left to complain. Another problem is, well, what if one small government isn't expansionist, but is basically North Korea? Nobody leaves alive, nobody complains and lives, and nobody but the oligarchs has a say in government. > If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. How about this: Some people like you, but not enough. If they strike, or demonstrate, my police forces kill them and everyone else goes back to work, suitably chastened. My company takes a small hit, but compliance among the workforce is more important to my bottom line than not killing your supporters. Also: Your plan to scrape up enough resources to leave is overly-optimistic, especially given how much of a following the KKK had in some towns in the 1920s. Do you know what a "sundown town" was? > I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :) I do appreciate your honesty. I'm also trying to be honest in this, and to explain myself well. My core concern is this: We tried it your way, more or less, back in the Gilded Age, a time of big companies largely untroubled by governmental regulations of any kind and local governments largely left alone by state and Federal actions. Why do you think going back to that would not cause a return to the serious social and economic problems the Gilded Age had?