- 01 Jan 2005 21:42
#542807
Yes, I agree, it depends on how you define democracy. But thats not really the point here; what I was trying to show is that the fact of having a certain system (democratic or whatever) does not necessarily justify what that system does. PhilosoFlea was saying that taxation is justified because it was the decision of a democratic government. My point is that a democratic government can do all sorts of things that aren't necessarily justified. The population doesn't even have to be evil; it just has to be ignorant or complicit with the unjustified act. The democratic government isn't like some sort of benevolent God, whose every act is the embodiment of pure goodness. Because of that, saying that "the democratic state decided that X is good, therefore X is good" is a very poor argument.
I explained the basis for my morality in the thread about theft. And also, why should you support democracy as a moral justification for something? I thought the only moral justification for a utilitarian was if it lead to the greater good. A democratic decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good. So you should be taking my side here, not arguing against me.
This is one of the most absurd things I have heard from you yet. For one thing, no dictator/Tsar/whatever can possibly favor libertarianism. He might as well be favoring his own demise. And for another, the only special interest groups that favor libertarianism are ideological libertarian groups like the american Libertarian Party, or the Objectivists. Special interest groups usually want government favors and handouts, which is profoundly anti-libertarian. Powerful businesses are especially anti-libertarian, since they clamor for protection and regulation that hurts their competition. Libertarianism serves fewer special interest groups than any other ideology I know of. For example, liberalism caters to the special interests of unions, environmentalists, politicians, and minorities, among others. Liberalism favors these groups at the expense of everyone else, while libertarians would treat them no differently from everyone else.
As I mentioned above, the population doesn't have to be evil in order for a democratic, constitutional government to commit atrocities. It merely has to be ignorant or complicit in the crimes.
No, I maintain that it is not relevant. I was trying to show that the argument that democracy alone can justify something is a poor one. All that is necessary to show that is the possibility that a democratic government can commit ONE unjustified act. Not even an atrocity, just one act that is not justfied. Such unjustified acts occur all the time in democracies. Tell me what you think the most democratic country is, and I'll give you one action by that country that we can both agree is unjustified. So I think this argument is done. There is no need to bring in what the Nazis did in the 1930's.
Tyranny is absolute power. I admit that there are non-coercive types of power, but you can't have absolute power without coercion. That is, unless there is some absurd situation where you buy up all the food in the world or something. But in the real world, the absolute power to get anyone to do anything you want requires some degree of coercion. The free market does not use any coercion though, so it can't have absolute power over people.
And actually, the libertarian movement is not interested in increasing the GNP. The GNP is a measure of the quantity of money in society, not the amount of wealth. A good libertarian would oppose increases in the GNP, and support increases in material wealth.
And the lack of knowledge about other sciences is perhaps a weakness of libertarianism, but it the end I don't think it really matters. We are not interested in fine-tuning government to ensure that the greatest possible good comes about. So it is not really necessary to learn everything about all the sciences to determine what brings about human happiness. We don't even need to use economics in that way. Our knowledge of economics can just be used as a weapon against other ideologies, since we can show how they won't work as intended.
I don't see how this is relevant. If a libertarian society comes about, it will be because a large number of people in that society are libertarians or libertarian sympathizers. So it should be no problem to pass a law against murder, rape, theft, etc. Whether they are naturally against murder, rape, theft etc does not matter.
No, it is not necessary for me to believe that everyone will "naturally" perceive murder and theft as wrong. It is enough that generally, they DO perceive them as wrong. And that sentiment would be even stronger in a libertarian society, where probably a great number of people believe in the libertarian ideology. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about passing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Those laws are the ones that 99% of people agree on and would have no problem being passed and enforced.
And libertarianism isn't necessarily opposed to collectivism, as long as it is not coercive. The view that a libertarian society would be nothing but individuals caring about nothing but themselves is an absurd caricature. And I don't believe enforcing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc count as coercion, since the consent of murderers, rapists, and theives is not morally required.
And I think you must have missed the part in "why capitalism is unfair" where I mentioned my views on land. I'll repost it for you.
So people are always free to "live off the land" if they choose in my ideal society. And you could only own a natural resource after you extract it from the ground. You couldn't just say "that whole mine/forest/etc belongs to me!" and expect that claim to be respected.
The rules only really mean something when the vast majority of society supports them. For example, many people don't view music downloading as wrong, so laws against them are quite ineffective. But nearly everyone views murder as wrong, so laws against it are effective. The only way to really change the rules of society is to convince enough people of your morals. So yes, it is a kind of rule of the strongest. The strongest in this case happen to be the vast majority of society. This is just the way things work; no natural rights or social contract can work when society doesn't agree with them. Why does this have to be libertarian morals? Well thats an interesting question. I endorse moral relativism, so there is nothing inherently superior about libertarian morals. They are just MY morals. Maybe all I should ask for is a society where libertarians can be left alone to practice their own system. Because if no moral system is better than another, then there is no reason why libertarians should be subjected to someone else's morals.
="norwegian"Thats right, constitutions put limitations on democracy. As soon as a constitution does this, you don't have a full democracy anymore. In a full democracy, there would be no such limitations, and a 51% majority could do whatever the hell they like.
That really depends on the definition you use on democracy. Right from the start, most people agreed that the minority should have some kind of "veto" against decisions made by the majority, that severly disputes against their interests. It is also a hindrance against drastical decisions being made "in the heat of the moment". I do not see that that and democracy are exclusionary. It is just different opinions about what democracy should be all about.
Yes, I agree, it depends on how you define democracy. But thats not really the point here; what I was trying to show is that the fact of having a certain system (democratic or whatever) does not necessarily justify what that system does. PhilosoFlea was saying that taxation is justified because it was the decision of a democratic government. My point is that a democratic government can do all sorts of things that aren't necessarily justified. The population doesn't even have to be evil; it just has to be ignorant or complicit with the unjustified act. The democratic government isn't like some sort of benevolent God, whose every act is the embodiment of pure goodness. Because of that, saying that "the democratic state decided that X is good, therefore X is good" is a very poor argument.
So again, democracy is a poor moral justification for anything. It certainly cannot justify taxation.
But what is the alterantive? You claimed that you were no follower of the concept of "natural rights", but I think that a lot of your arguments implicitly are based on some concept of "natural rights".
I explained the basis for my morality in the thread about theft. And also, why should you support democracy as a moral justification for something? I thought the only moral justification for a utilitarian was if it lead to the greater good. A democratic decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good. So you should be taking my side here, not arguing against me.
Given a big enough majority, any imaginable atrocity could be committed by those governments.
Yes, but if a minority would force thru libertarianism thru political dictatorship, a revolution with the following atrocities would be quite propable in the future. Actually, most atrocitious regimes in the western cultural hemisphere have either been triggered as a responce to libertarian policies, or as an attempt to uphold the interests of the same groups that favour libertarianism. In this I mean that the labour market in many rightwing dictatorships are quite libertarian. Even the russian tsardom had a quite libertarian attitude towards working class wages, labour regulation and welfare spending. Socialism as such grew powerful as a direct response to the nightwatcher state. Libertarianism is so scewed toward the special interests of some groups and against the special interests of other groups, that use of violence to remove it is just a consequence of human nature.
This is one of the most absurd things I have heard from you yet. For one thing, no dictator/Tsar/whatever can possibly favor libertarianism. He might as well be favoring his own demise. And for another, the only special interest groups that favor libertarianism are ideological libertarian groups like the american Libertarian Party, or the Objectivists. Special interest groups usually want government favors and handouts, which is profoundly anti-libertarian. Powerful businesses are especially anti-libertarian, since they clamor for protection and regulation that hurts their competition. Libertarianism serves fewer special interest groups than any other ideology I know of. For example, liberalism caters to the special interests of unions, environmentalists, politicians, and minorities, among others. Liberalism favors these groups at the expense of everyone else, while libertarians would treat them no differently from everyone else.
The most important point hovewer is that if the great majority of the population is evil, nothing will hold them back! Actually, it is just as propable that the regime in power then would alter their ideology, to fit the needs of their evil population to stay in power. If 90 percent of the population would like to torture redheads, any normal libertarian human being in power, would rather alter the law so that it would be permittable to torture redheads, rather than have a revolution that could be captured by communists, that would lead them to lose all their wealth. I think some of the same logic applies to the german right and the jews during nazism.
As I mentioned above, the population doesn't have to be evil in order for a democratic, constitutional government to commit atrocities. It merely has to be ignorant or complicit in the crimes.
I was talking theoretically. What the actual Nazi party did or did not do in the 1930's has no relavance.
Actually, it may be very relevant, because it implies that there is some kind of social, economic or political dynamic in a moderne democracy, that somehow prevents such an extreme movement from being very popular over extended periods of time. I have a severe problem with theoretical arguments, that is contrary to how the world really works. Also, and very importantly, it is much more usual that a brutal dictatorships grows out of another dicatorship, or as a consequence of a coup. I think you have read Hayek a couple of time to much. There is actually extremly little evidence for what he claimed in "Road to Serfdom" actually happening! I actually get quite frustrated when libertarians still use "theoretical evidence" from the Gods, when it obviously contradicts the observations being made of the real world.
No, I maintain that it is not relevant. I was trying to show that the argument that democracy alone can justify something is a poor one. All that is necessary to show that is the possibility that a democratic government can commit ONE unjustified act. Not even an atrocity, just one act that is not justfied. Such unjustified acts occur all the time in democracies. Tell me what you think the most democratic country is, and I'll give you one action by that country that we can both agree is unjustified. So I think this argument is done. There is no need to bring in what the Nazis did in the 1930's.
No, because tyranny cannot exist without coercion. The market uses no coercion, so it cannot possibly be a tyranny.
But we have the problem I have discussed earlier. Power is more than coercion, power may also be to posess what other people need. The idea that coercion is the only form of power is a libertarian idea, which I do not share. A quick look at the 1800s would surely prove that power, even if it is not a result of coercion, could be an extremly powerful thing. The whole problem is the perception that all individuals exists in some kind of "normal state" when the do not have contact with other human beings, and that they are just fine as long as they are not a victim of coercion from others. That is totally bogus, because human happiness and even survival requires active actions from other individuals. I actually find the libertarian and quasilibertarian/american conservative view of the individual utter ridiculous. I actually agree that libertarianism may have a slight advantage in economics, but when it comes to biology, psychology, sociology and other such sciences, they are completely clueless! Actually, the perception that man has "free will" isn`t that compliant with physics either. This is also clear when you argue based on utilitarianism. You claim that libertarianism isn`t all about economics, but with about every argument I presented, you argued that the loss of utility on that variable would be offset by "more material wealth". I really doesn`t see that the libertarian movement is interested in anything else than "increasing the GNP".
Tyranny is absolute power. I admit that there are non-coercive types of power, but you can't have absolute power without coercion. That is, unless there is some absurd situation where you buy up all the food in the world or something. But in the real world, the absolute power to get anyone to do anything you want requires some degree of coercion. The free market does not use any coercion though, so it can't have absolute power over people.
And actually, the libertarian movement is not interested in increasing the GNP. The GNP is a measure of the quantity of money in society, not the amount of wealth. A good libertarian would oppose increases in the GNP, and support increases in material wealth.
And the lack of knowledge about other sciences is perhaps a weakness of libertarianism, but it the end I don't think it really matters. We are not interested in fine-tuning government to ensure that the greatest possible good comes about. So it is not really necessary to learn everything about all the sciences to determine what brings about human happiness. We don't even need to use economics in that way. Our knowledge of economics can just be used as a weapon against other ideologies, since we can show how they won't work as intended.
Not everyone has to agree to pass laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Why should one bother to get the consent of a murderer, when he didn't bother to get the consent of his victim? Beyond that, no laws are really necessary in a libertarian society
The point is that in a natural society, no consent is needed for anything. To say that consent is neccesary, it would imply a drastic alteration in the fabric of "society". Of course, it may sound contradictory, but I think the same goes as for any other law, that you really cannot alter the rules people live by, without most of them actually consenting. The whole point is that in a pre-state society, "murderers" aren`t a tiny minority, but most people would use murder, it they deemed it appropriate to achieve the goals that they set forth. You percieve that most people naturally would think that murder in every circumstance is wrong, while that certainly were not the case in primitive tribal society. Heck, the romans used murder for entertainment.
I don't see how this is relevant. If a libertarian society comes about, it will be because a large number of people in that society are libertarians or libertarian sympathizers. So it should be no problem to pass a law against murder, rape, theft, etc. Whether they are naturally against murder, rape, theft etc does not matter.
Again, you use some kind of libertarian natural rights dogma for granted. That murder and theft are somewhat "naturally" being percieved as wrong, and that people have always respected some kind of "golden rule", that you only do to others what you do want them to do to you, something that is surely not true. The ban of coercion also implie some kind of collectivism, because it suddenly becomes a collective case if someone uses coercion. You create a "society" that creates rules that everyone should abide by, while in a purely individual society without any collective rules overhead, coercion would just be a case relevant to the coercer and the coerced. Also, introduction of property rights also let people deny resources neccesary for life to others by use of force! And the archeological evidence and old stories seem to suggest that the hunters, shepards and gatherers were not happy when the peasants started to fence pieces of land in.
No, it is not necessary for me to believe that everyone will "naturally" perceive murder and theft as wrong. It is enough that generally, they DO perceive them as wrong. And that sentiment would be even stronger in a libertarian society, where probably a great number of people believe in the libertarian ideology. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about passing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Those laws are the ones that 99% of people agree on and would have no problem being passed and enforced.
And libertarianism isn't necessarily opposed to collectivism, as long as it is not coercive. The view that a libertarian society would be nothing but individuals caring about nothing but themselves is an absurd caricature. And I don't believe enforcing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc count as coercion, since the consent of murderers, rapists, and theives is not morally required.
And I think you must have missed the part in "why capitalism is unfair" where I mentioned my views on land. I'll repost it for you.
I wrote:Land is something I will probably disagree with many libertarians on. I am not a Georgist, instead I don't necessarily believe that land should be owned. Rather, you mix your labor with the land and you own the resulting product. For example, a farmer who mixes his labor with the earth owns the corn that comes out of it, not that land itself. Someone coming by and stealing that corn would be coercion, because the thief coerced the farmer into producing the corn for him. But it would be coercion for the farmer to prevent someone from walking across the land that the corn is grown on, as long as the corn is not being disturbed. If you build a house, you own the house and some small area of land around it. That land is necessary for the product (the house). You shouldn't own six acres of land in addition to that house that you never use. It would be coercion to prevent people from using that land.
So people are always free to "live off the land" if they choose in my ideal society. And you could only own a natural resource after you extract it from the ground. You couldn't just say "that whole mine/forest/etc belongs to me!" and expect that claim to be respected.
Also, I was speaking about changing any rule of society, not the use of coercion as such. On the fly, I can only think of three ways to change the rules, social contract, natural rights or the strongest enforcing their rules. It is you that claim that the social contract can`t be altered without everyone "signing". You claim that you are not a supporter of natural rights. And if the strongest simply would introduce their morals, why would that have to be the libertarian strain of morals? I still miss your alternative. I think some kind of social contract is the most viable out of those theoretical options.
The rules only really mean something when the vast majority of society supports them. For example, many people don't view music downloading as wrong, so laws against them are quite ineffective. But nearly everyone views murder as wrong, so laws against it are effective. The only way to really change the rules of society is to convince enough people of your morals. So yes, it is a kind of rule of the strongest. The strongest in this case happen to be the vast majority of society. This is just the way things work; no natural rights or social contract can work when society doesn't agree with them. Why does this have to be libertarian morals? Well thats an interesting question. I endorse moral relativism, so there is nothing inherently superior about libertarian morals. They are just MY morals. Maybe all I should ask for is a society where libertarians can be left alone to practice their own system. Because if no moral system is better than another, then there is no reason why libertarians should be subjected to someone else's morals.