[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.11490

File: 1664607623442.jpg (68.36 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, topic-statue-of-liberty-ge….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Observing the trends in politics recently, I feel like the battle between left and right is unhelpful and destructive.

The real battle is between libertarian principles and authoritarian principles.

What are your thoughts on libertarianism vs authoritarianism?

---

I personally lean far more libertarian. And honestly I think most people do.

I believe, in general, libertarianism is good, and authoritarianism is evil. But I also understand that for liberty to be protected, some government and restrictions are required.

My general principle is that individual liberty is the ultimate goal, but not necessarily the highest priority.

In my experience, individual liberty cannot be protected if it is the highest priority. You need to first and foremost protect the right to life. What worth is liberty if you're dead?

Likewise, there are other rights that must take priority over liberty in order to preserve it: The right to not be physically harmed by another person, the right to not be coerced into an obligation, the right to own and control property, the right to hold and communicate your beliefs publicly, and the right to possess and use force (deadly if necessary) to protect these rights.

Each of these are important prerequisites to preserving liberty. Without any of them, some if not all liberty is lost. And so, these must take priority over liberty in order for liberty to be protected.

And here's where the government comes in. In order to protect these prerequisites, and thus protect liberty, laws should be passed and enforced. Even more, laws that get passed and enforced should mostly be laws that support those prerequisites.

Any laws that don't directly support these prerequisites should require at least 90% support from the population of the jurisdiction. It is immoral to have a law that a significant portion of the population disagrees with if it isn't supporting the prerequisites of liberty.

In short: I support the minimal possible amount of government enforcement and intervention that maintains a stable and free society.

If the government starts going beyond the protection of liberty and its prerequisites, if it starts to enforce its own morality, or worse, starts to actively violate the prerequisites of liberty, then that is authoritarianism, and liberty is damaged and eventually lost.

What are the downsides to this philosophy of mine?

Well, other people get to live lives that you may consider to be immoral, others are allowed to say and do incredibly offensive things, and people are allowed to, generally, be jerks to each other.

But that's the price of liberty if you want liberty. If you want to be able to live a life that others dislike, then others need to be able to live a life that you dislike.

That's the general gist of my position regarding libertarianism vs authoritarianism.

Obviously there is a lot more detail and nuance to this philosophy of mine, and clearly there will be disagreements about it, but I think this summary of my philosophy is pretty good for now.

 No.11491

I fundamentally place individual liberty at the highest priority.
Most others are inconsistent as far as I've seen.
Life, for instance, besides faltering in the natural philosophy aspects for rights, falls apart when one considers not only is death fundamentally a part of existence, but that many deaths are caused by our own choices we ourselves make.

Even leaving this aside, though;
There's many, many people, as well as many a philosopher writing on such things throughout history, who will insist they'd much rather live free than on their knees.
To quote a particularly famous instance;
"Give me freedom or give me death. "

 No.11492

My take:
If you want to prosper as a community, a governing body is required to set up rules to protect the individuals and ensure that everyone contributes positively to the community.

I don't think authorities have the right to intervene in things that purely apply to an individual's living space. But I don't think you can rely on the individual under total liberty to not do things that will negatively impact another person's liberty.

Also, there are bigger themes going on in our modern society that does need governance by specialized services. Environment, economy, healthcare,social welfare, any kind of public services really.

I don't think you can manage these properly if you leave it up to the individual.

Of course, in this question I do not address which government is proper in dealing with these things. That matters a lot, but I feel it's out of the bounds for this question.

 No.11494

>>11491
>not only is death fundamentally a part of existence, but that many deaths are caused by our own choices we ourselves make.
Indeed. When I speak of the right to life, it's a bit more nuanced. It's more the right to not have your life taken by someone else.

A small change, but the specification really helps out with putting in place protections against that and punishments for violating it.

I could get into how "what is a right" is arbitrary depending on your goals, but that's a whole different can of worms unrelated to the thread.

At the very least, I think we agree that, in the abstract, a right is something that someone is entitled to which imposes moral/social/legal obligations on others.

>"Give me freedom or give me death."
Life isn't worth having if you aren't free. And freedom can't be had without life. You need both of them. Since life is a prerequisite, protecting it is essential to protecting individual liberty.

>>11492
>there are bigger themes going on in our modern society that does need governance by specialized services. Environment, economy, healthcare, social welfare, any kind of public services really.
These are the things that I mention that don't fall under the prerequisites for protecting liberty and should require a 90% approval from the population of the jurisdiction before being implemented.

I absolutely agree that government is important for things outside of simply protecting liberty, however, those things outside of that should only be done with a significantly high percentage of consent due to the ease with which such things can be abused or become an unsustainable financial burden on the citizens.

And if at any point the approval for a law falls from above 90% to below say 60%, then the law should be abolished.

This way, the government can adapt over time to the needs (or regrets) of the citizens.

But that's in an ideal system. Obviously it would be more complicated than that, but in principle, that would be my goal in deciding how a government adds and removes new laws unrelated to protecting the rights essential for liberty.

 No.11495

>>11494
Ultimately rights boil down to moral justification, as I see it.

But yeah, the more nuanced right to one's own life without being, say, stabbed by another is certainly viable.

For myself, I don't believe any rights need be placed higher or lower than others. I don't see why they couldn't be logically consistent throughout, and thus not require a violation thereof.

 No.11496

>>11495
>I don't see why they couldn't be logically consistent throughout, and thus not require a violation thereof.
I don't see how that's possible.

Like... it might be possible, but I don't see how a lot of these rights can avoid being in conflict with each other at one point or another. Someone will always find a way to pit them against each other.

So prioritizing them for those instances helps with the decision making should the time come.

Like, my right to not get stabbed should absolutely be more important than your individual liberty to stab me.

You could say that stabbing me isn't covered under individual liberty, but that's creating a bunch of exceptions when it's just easier to prioritize one over the other.

 No.11498

>>11496
Why would you assume people have a right to stab others?
Seems an odd one.

Suppose it boils down to a defining of terms, here.
But as I said, I see rights fundamentally as justification, not absolute rules.
I suppose the most similar concept is something like the NAP.

 No.11499

>>11498
>Why would you assume people have a right to stab others?
Well choosing to stab someone would fall under individual liberty, would it not? I think so.

Hence why the right to not be stabbed needs to take priority over individual liberty, if that makes sense.

> But as I said, I see rights fundamentally as justification, not absolute rules.
I kinda agree.

Rights, to me, are a system of priorities, not inviolable rules.

They're our goals, and they let us know which goals take priority over other goals.

Which is why I get a bit irked when people start claiming things are rights without clarifying where they are in the hierarchy, as if all rights take priority over everything else, including each other, which is illogical.

 No.11500

>>11499
I don't really see why.
Not unless you think ruling over others as a despotic tyrant is also a "liberty".
But that's why I say term definitions are probably at odds.

To start with, "liberty" is far too nebulous a term to be called a right, to begin with, as I see it.
Same issue as a right to life. Too many issues of one's own choices involved.

 No.11501

>>11500
>Not unless you think ruling over others as a despotic tyrant is also a "liberty".
It is for the despotic tyrant. They are using their liberty to take away the liberty of others and preserve their own.

>To start with, "liberty" is far too nebulous a term to be called a right, to begin with, as I see it.
That's why I prefer to see rights as a system of priorities.

It simplifies the process of defining "rights" (priorities) by allowing many of them to be vague and nebulous. The delineation of specific boundaries is defined by the higher priority rights, that way we don't need to include every exception in the definitions of the rights themselves.

For example: By saying that the right (priority) to not be physically harmed takes priority over individual liberty (freedom to do literally whatever you want), that effortlessly defines one of many boundaries on individual liberty, specifically that the right to individual liberty does not include the right to harm others.

Thus we have a system that automatically adapts to any situation. You don't need to pre-plan for every possible situation that might need to be addressed. You only need to know what's more important than what, and you can make effective decisions from that.

The boundaries of each right define themselves in relation to the other rights. The issue of vagueness solves itself.

Hence the reason I don't put "individual liberty" (the freedom to do literally whatever you want, good or bad) at the top of the priority list of rights. Bad things would happen because there wouldn't be any limitations on it.

I hope this description made a little bit more sense this time. ^u^

 No.11502

File: 1664803541230.png (170.56 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

>>11490
Off the record, I can not be in favor of any political system that has ordered atrocities or great evil.  Good is mostly the absence of evil -- no amount of good makes up for great evil.  Anarchy has the advantage of lacking the capacity to demand evil from subjects.  There will be evil, but it will not be caused by the state.

I guess that makes me extreme libertarian.  Well, the extreme of a version of libertarian -- I gather any substantial assertion about what "libertarian" means will cause distress.

On the record, I'm a scientist with no political opinions.

 No.11503

>>11501
The problem with assuming you've a right at all to liberty, especially defined as "freedom to do literally whatever you want", is again, it contradicts our own choices.
Not to mention issues of nature, in that the very existence of gravity would be a violation of your rights in this framework.

>Thus we have a system that automatically adapts to any situation. You don't need to pre-plan for every possible situation that might need to be addressed
This is possible without defaulting to contradictions through 'priorities', though.
It just requires a bit of care in setting out, usually by first examining the 'why'.

 No.11504

>>11503
Well obviously the laws of physics take priority since it's literally impossible to violate those. lol

But to get back on topic, I think defining "liberty" as "the freedom to do whatever you want" doesn't have any issues. Perhaps to clarify what I mean, another way of defining it in an equivalent manner is "the freedom to take whatever action you are physically capable of".

There's no contradiction of choices there. You're free to take whatever action you want to, however you're not free to overcome impossibilities or to prevent the natural consequences of your actions. I feel those to limits are included in my definition of liberty.

>This is possible without defaulting to contradictions through 'priorities', though. It just requires a bit of care in setting out, usually by first examining the 'why'.
I don't think that's possible, honestly. I've never seen anything that can really cover all possible situations in a consistent and complete way without using priorities of some kind. Sort of a Gödel incompleteness for purely axiomatic moral systems.

Then again it's possible that I'm misunderstanding the sort of system you're proposing. The "first examining the 'why'" is a sort of prioritization, so you may be proposing something similar to what I am but from a more explicit, rather than implicit, direction.

>>11502
> Anarchy has the advantage of lacking the capacity to demand evil from subjects.
The issue with anarchy is that there will always be someone who uses their freedom to accumulate power, remove the freedoms of others, and "demand evil from their subjects".

All anarchic systems inevitably collapse into authoritarian systems, however piecemeal, just by the nature of people being people.

 No.11505

File: 1664884354060.jpg (67.92 KB, 800x483, 800:483, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11504
I know your intent is to argue against anarchy, but you seem to be arguing just as hard against state power.  

Granted, if systems that were most probable were most moral, states would seem to have an advantage.  Although that's just a soft version of "might makes right" which few subscribe to...overtly, anyway.

 No.11506

File: 1664916894236.png (541.85 KB, 1280x712, 160:89, 241.png) ImgOps Google

>>11504
>The "first examining the 'why'" is a sort of prioritization, so you may be proposing something similar to what I am but from a more explicit, rather than implicit, direction.
Probably not.
Though this is because I am something of an extreme absolutist.
The functions may end up the same, ultimately without significant difference in the larger scale, but that absolutist aspect ensures some minutia inevitably creates conflict.

Regardless; Building consistency is the domain of logic when it comes to such philosophical items.
It certainly is possible. It just requires effort and thought.
To start with; What is the purpose of rights?
What do they impose? How do these restrictions work?

Examining where all authority in this case comes from answers that;
Violence is the supreme authority by which all other authority is derived.
Thus, rights must be preserved through violence. And so, the purpose of codifying these rights is to provide point for which resorting to violence is justified.

Rights are not law or rule.
Rights are casus belli.

 No.11508

>What are your thoughts on libertarianism vs authoritarianism?
Libertarianism as expressed in its purer forms lacks the ability, conviction, and coordination to prevent authoritarianism from supplanting it.  A random libertarian can rail all he wants about his guns and property rights, yet does nothing when the rights of his neighbor are being trampled upon.  "They better not try that on my property!" is the common response...  and then when they "try that" on his property, he gets no support and gets steamrolled just like his neighbor did.  The solution necessitates hypothetical voluntary power structures, private police, etc., but with no authority behind it, these too will fail from within due to "pure" libertarians who have theirs and care nothing about supporting the volunteer structures, and also from without by those who don't care or recognize the legitimacy of the makeshift alliances.  Authoritarianism may thus be evil, but authority has a massive advantage over libertarianism, so much so that any real expression of libertarianism may be seen as a fluke or transition in the grand scheme of things.

 No.11509

>>11505
The issue is that, while libertarian values are the goal, pure libertarianism is impossible for any long period of time.

So some authority and enforcement is required in order to prevent libertarian principles from being immediately supplanted with an authoritarian regime.

I'm not necessarily arguing for what is most probable, but instead arguing for what I believe to be the most libertarian possible system that can last any significant amount of time.

>>11506
>Violence is the supreme authority by which all other authority is derived.
That's a bit extreme. I wouldn't say violence is authority, but I do understand what you're saying.

It is indeed the most obvious and powerful tool of authority.

Hence why I strongly support the 2nd amendment. By giving both sides that ultimate tool of authority, it creates an impasse demotivating either side from encroaching on the other.

>What is the purpose of rights? What do they impose? How do these restrictions work?
By my understanding, the purpose of rights is to guide the authority and the people of a society in what they are obligated to avoid violating, and what the authority is obligated to protect.

Rights impose restrictions on both the authority and on the people (through the authority) in what effects their actions are allowed to have on others, and by consequence, what actions they are allowed to take without authority meting out a punishment (or the people meting out a punishment on the authority, in rare cases).

That's sort of the basic societal structure of the role I believe rights should play.

>Thus, rights must be preserved through violence.

The punishment doesn't necessarily need to be violence. Going straight to violence first is extreme, in my opinion. The punishment only needs to be demotivating enough to generally prevent the violation of laws or the rights of others.

In my opinion, the punishment should, on average, be what is considered a violation of rights of equivalent value on the law/right violator, whether that be through restrictions, imprisonment, fines, or, as you've said, violence (death specifically). This works in the overwhelming number of cases, though escalation can occur in those situations where the existing punishment has proven to not be demotivating enough.

I'm not too specific about necessary enforcement measures, but that's the general gist of my opinion. They only need to demotivate enough to protect the rights and laws in place.

>>11508
Agreed. Some amount of authority will always be necessary, otherwise pure authoritarianism will inevitably rear its ugly head.

Authority is a necessary evil in order to protect essential liberty.

My personal opinion is that the main goal of authority should be maximum possible sustainable liberty.

Where is that balance? I'm not sure, but I believe I've outlined at least a good starting point so far.

 No.11510

>>11509
I don't see the predicted length of time anarchy could last as being relevant.  If it is the most appropriate system, any length of time is desirable.

 No.11511

>>11510
If a system is total anarchy for even a moment, it will be atrociously authoritarian for many times longer than it was ever anarchic.

The negatives ultimately outweigh positives.

 No.11512

>>11511
You asked for my thoughts.  I'm sorry you don't care for them.

 No.11513

>>11509
>Going straight to violence first is extreme, in my opinion
You misunderstand.
It's not violence as a first.
It's resistance when rights are violated.

It isn't about punishment. Punishment is entirely irrelevant here.

>whether that be through restrictions, imprisonment, fines, or, as you've said, violence (death specifically)
All of these are violence.
Ultimately they have to be backed by violence. As much as we, as a society, like to pretend we're beyond such things, we're more noble than that, ask yourself; What happens when you refuse to pay a fine?
What happens when you refuse to be imprisoned?

This is why violence is the supreme authority by which all other authority is derived.
Because as much as we like to flower it, all other restrictions or punishments are backed by violence in the end.

Every single penny the state collects is backed by a man with a gun, at the end of the day.
Every single ordinance, every single regulation.
End of the day, if you say "No" to their presumed 'civilized' punishments, it's violence they resort to.

 No.11514

>>11512
Disagreeing doesn't mean I don't care for them.

If you feel that total freedom only for a moment is worth the cost of slavery for a lifetime, then that's totally okay.

But it's simply an undeniable fact that pure anarchy collapses swiftly into authoritarianism to some strong degree.

>>11513
>Punishment is entirely irrelevant here.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Should the violation of rights not be punished for the purpose of demotivating violation?

Is that not the purpose of codifying rights?

>All of these are violence. Ultimately they have to be backed by violence.
Hence why I mentioned escalation should the initial punishment not work. Violence is the last resort, but not the only resort.

Saying all of those are violence just because they can be escalated to that isn't quite an accurate portrayal, IMO.

But I do understand now what you mean by everything being backed by violence. In that sense, you are correct.

I just feel it's quite harsh to view a system entirely from its most extreme actions in the most extreme circumstances, especially when the system is explicitly designed to avoid and discourage such.

 No.11516

>>11514
> Is that not the purpose of codifying rights?
No.
Rights are not about some petty vengeance when you're wronged.
This is what I was trying to say earlier.
It's not about punishment. It's about defense.

Rights do not say it is 'fair' to do X, Y, or Z to someone in response to something or other.
There's no metric attached at all for them to do so.
None of the philosophical underpinnings of rights have spent time trying to say exactly how many years someone must lose in prison for stealing a kit kat bar.

Punishment is the domain of fairness.
Resistance is the domain of rights.

>Hence why I mentioned escalation should the initial punishment not work.\
If I tell you "Give me your money or I will shoot you", do you consider this not to be a violent act?

>I just feel it's quite harsh to view a system entirely from its most extreme actions in the most extreme circumstances,
It isn't the most extreme circumstances.
On the contrary, it's the most simplistic of circumstances.

If you are driving along, and you get a ticket for speeding, that is, factually, objectively, and as simple reality whether we like it or not, backed by a man with a gun at the end of the day.
You either pay that fine, or you have a man with a gun force you into a cage.
This is absolutely violence.

 No.11517

>>11516
>Punishment is the domain of fairness.
>Resistance is the domain of rights.
Resistance in what way? Resistance to what? By who? When and how?

Rights are simply those things that individuals entitled to from their government and from those around them.

How would rights be protected if not via the threat of negative consequence on the violator?

>If I tell you "Give me your money or I will shoot you", do you consider this not to be a violent act?
Nope. It's a coercive act. There is a threat of violence, but there is no violence.

>This is absolutely violence.
I disagree. That is far to broad a definition of the word violence, in my opinion.

 No.11518

>>11517
>Resistance in what way? Resistance to what? By who? When and how?
As I said earlier; The point of rights is to determine at what point at which violence is justified.
Rights exist to establish the point by which I, or anyone else, have just cause to resist.
A violation of rights marks the point by which a defense for those rights can be mounted, morally.

As I said; Rights are casus belli.

>Rights are simply those things that individuals entitled to from their government and from those around them.
You demonstrate the point in this statement.
You're not establishing rights as something that marks the point by which fair punishment must be imposed.
You're instead pointing to them as something others including the state are obligated to respect.

>How would rights be protected if not via the threat of negative consequence on the violator?
Leaving aside the simple reality that consequence does not always make people behave, let alone the issues of longer-term reactions and the bitterness that often follows...
Punishment is not the sole means of threat.

If someone tries to stab me, and I shoot them, it's not out of a desire for a fair punishment or a desire to create a negative consequence to dissuade such an event.
The goal is simply resistance to the action.
To prevent it from happening.

>Nope. It's a coercive act. There is a threat of violence, but there is no violence.
Coercion through violence is violence.
Certainly, the man who draws and shoots his mugger does not bear the blame for initiating violence, after all, right?

>I disagree. That is far to broad a definition of the word violence, in my opinion.
I would consider the definition that claims mugging not to be violence to be far too restrictive, myself.

But even besides this, it's irrelevant;
Call it what you wish, violence is still the end result.
If I do not cave to your coercion through threat, violence is used against me.
The net result is the same.
Violence is what gives the coercion its power.

If I refuse to curtail to a state's demands, irrespective of whether those demands are just or not, I will be met with violence.
I presume you do at least consider a police officer shooting someone resisting an arrest violence, at least.

 No.11519

>>11514
>If you feel that total freedom only for a moment is worth the cost of slavery for a lifetime, then that's totally okay.

I do.

>But it's simply an undeniable fact that pure anarchy collapses swiftly into authoritarianism to some strong degree.

Which no more obliges me to be in favor of that future slavery and authoritarianism as I am now.  Presumably the current state formed out of anarchy to drive people into slavery, same as any future state might.

I'm not trying to convince you not to favor state power, to be clear.  My goal is just to be understood.

 No.11520

>>11519
Your continuing attempt to posit a hypothetical future state that is significantly different from any current state I might be in, without explanation, comes off as dismissive and unwelcoming.

 No.11523

>>11518
>If someone tries to stab me, and I shoot them, it's not out of a desire for a fair punishment or a desire to create a negative consequence to dissuade such an event. The goal is simply resistance to the action.
I see those as identical.

Whether the punishment comes before or after is irrelevant as, in both cases, its purpose is to discourage, or in this case outright prevent, a violation of rights.

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the word "fair"? I never proposed a "fair" punishment. I proposed a discouraging punishment, on average of equal value ("fair"), but in rare cases, escalated, such as you shooting the attempted stabber.

>Certainly, the man who draws and shoots his mugger does not bear the blame for initiating violence, after all, right?
Technically he does. And it is justified in the instance where he reasonably fears that the other will initiate violence if he does not.

>I presume you do at least consider a police officer shooting someone resisting an arrest violence, at least.
Indeed.

At the end of the day, if a situation escalates to its most extreme, violence usually enters the picture. I agree with you on that.

What I disagree with is the implication that violence is the only way to prevent a violation of rights. Most people are discouraged by far more than just violence at the end of escalation.

Someone getting a ticket for speeding isn't afraid of being shot for speeding. They're afraid of being fined, losing their license, being late to their job, etc. Almost nobody is legitimately worried about escalation to violence.

I would even go so far as to say that even if violence wasn't at the top of the escalation chain, most people would still comply with the law.

>>11519
>My goal is just to be understood.
Then consider it understood.

>>11520
Disagreement has a tendency to feel unwelcoming, even if that isn't the intent. I apologize if I made you feel unwelcome.

And I don't intend to be dismissive either. I've just been given very little to respond to beside your claim that anarchy is the best system, which I disagree with.

If there were specifics I could discuss regarding that, it would be more difficult for me to appear dismissive about it. But until then, all I can really say is "I disagree, here's why."

Perhaps I should ask some questions?

Why do you believe that pure anarchy is the best system?

Do you believe that pure anarchy is practically possible to achieve in a way that has a positive lasting impact?

If so, how?

Is there a question I should be asking you about it that I'm not?

 No.11524

>>11523
Thank you for replying.  People seldom respond positively to a complaint, and you seem to not have become offended.  Not that I'm trying to say becoming offended would be bad.  I don't judge.

>Do you believe that pure anarchy is practically possible to achieve in a way that has a positive lasting impact?

Not really.  To be clear, it would be really hard to make a practical argument on the smattering of data related to people living in something like pure anarchy.  My guess is that people are mostly people, and it doesn't really matter what type of state system (or lack) is officially in charge, with a king or president or party leader in some far-away place.  States concentrate power to make some people's lives easier, some people's lives harder, and for many, it's a wash.

But even if it were proven states increase the mean quality of life for everyone, I'm not sure that's good enough.  I had a Chief once that was fond of saying, "One aww shit cancels 1000 atta-boy's."

>Why do you believe that pure anarchy is the best system?

Anarchy is simple.  

And it provides the simplest solution to the difficulty of needing to respect state authority but finding it intolerable to apologize for or condone state abuse.

Somewhat perhaps it's an emotional thing: I don't know how to forgive state authorities when they willfully cause suffering.

 No.11525

File: 1665037151124.png (388.36 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

It's OK.  I have paperwork proving I'm crazy, if you believe those kinds of proofs [which I don't, as some would say exemplifies the original problem].

 No.11526

>>11523
>I see those as identical.
Do you believe muggers should be sentenced to death?

>its purpose is to discourage,
No, it unequivocally is not.
If I shoot you after you try to stab me, I'm not trying to discourage you from stabbing me.
I'm explicitly, quite abundantly clearly given the situation, stopping you from stabbing me.
That is the goal.
There is no discouragement at play between your actions at that point, and my own.
The only discouragement happens to others, which is entirely irrelevant to my actions at that moment. I'm not shooting the person trying to stab me for the sake of someone else down the road who might have someone else think about stabbing them, I'm explicitly defending myself in the moment.

>Technically he does. And it is justified in the instance where he reasonably fears that the other will initiate violence if he does not.
I would very strongly disagree with the notion that shooting someone who says "give me your money or I will kill you" is a preemptive initiation of violence.

>At the end of the day, if a situation escalates to its most extreme, violence usually enters the picture. I agree with you on that.
Except it isn't the extreme.
it's the factual, absolute, and ultimate end result.
Regardless of how you feel about that, it isn't "extreme" to say that this is what backs every single fine, court order, or law.

>What I disagree with is the implication that violence is the only way to prevent a violation of rights
it's never been suggested that is the only way.
We can certainly speak things through.

People've long negotiated throughout history. Sometimes, we argue mutual benefit. Sometimes, we argue pragmatism. Sometimes, we argue morality.

Violence isn't the only means to prevent a violation of rights, nor would I suggest it is.

>Most people are discouraged by far more than just violence at the end of escalation.
That's fine. I am, as stated, unconcerned in the slightest about discouragement.
Discouragement is irrelevant from my perspective.

>Someone getting a ticket for speeding isn't afraid of being shot for speeding. They're afraid of being fined, losing their license, being late to their job, etc. Almost nobody is legitimately worried about escalation to violence.
Worry is irrelevant.
I've not argued based off of worry.

>I would even go so far as to say that even if violence wasn't at the top of the escalation chain, most people would still comply with the law.
Most Jews complied with the Nazis during the holocost.

Compliance is irrelevant.

 No.11527

>>11524
>And it provides the simplest solution to the difficulty of needing to respect state authority but finding it intolerable to apologize for or condone state abuse.
This is about how I feel.

Ultimately, a moral state cannot exist.
A state by its nature must default to defending its actors, regardless of their moral state.

If a corrupt cop tries to arrest you, and you shoot him, the state'll universally back that corrupt cop.
End of the day, the state needs its authority respected more than it cares about morality. Such moral quandaries will be solved later, but first you have to submit.

This is certainly unacceptable to me.

 No.11528

>>11526
>If I shoot you after you try to stab me, I'm not trying to discourage you from stabbing me. I'm explicitly, quite abundantly clearly given the situation, stopping you from stabbing me.
In this specific context, I would say stopping falls under discouragement. Though I suppose a better would would be "deter".

But this is semantics.

The goal is to generally minimize rights violations.

At least I think that's the common goal we're discussing.

>Regardless of how you feel about that, it isn't "extreme" to say that this is what backs every single fine, court order, or law.
I have to ask at this point: Are you talking about in current existing societ, especially the US? Or in all possible societal structures?

If the former, then I guess I agree to an extent, but if the latter, then definitely not.

>I am, as stated, unconcerned in the slightest about discouragement. Discouragement is irrelevant from my perspective.
Then what is relevant?

I figured that general minimization of rights violations would be relevant to the discussion of system design, regardless of whether or not it's preventative or punishment.

In the context of a conversation regarding what the best balance is between authoritarian power and libertarian principles, I'm now lost as to what exactly you are arguing for.

What exactly are you trying to say about violence when it comes to its place in a system trying to balance between authoritarianism and libertarianism?

>>11524
>And it provides the simplest solution to the difficulty of needing to respect state authority but finding it intolerable to apologize for or condone state abuse.
I supposed I understand that perspective.

In that sense, I do agree, anarchy would be ideal, assuming it could be pulled off.

But I'm not exactly an idealist. I'm a staunch realist.

>>11527
>A state by its nature must default to defending its actors, regardless of their moral state. End of the day, the state needs its authority respected more than it cares about morality.
True, but that's why we have rights, like what is outlined the 2nd amendment, to allow us prevent that dissonance from getting too egregious, or retaliate if it ever does.

 No.11529

>>11528
>But I'm not exactly an idealist. I'm a staunch realist.

That's fine.  I'm a survivor, which makes me practically somewhat a realist.  I mostly hope to not increase state power by my own work.

 No.11530

>>11527
>first you have to submit
Right.  The cop might be punished but in believing so you're being asked to doubly trust the state.

 No.11531

File: 1665043499207.jpg (29.03 KB, 791x648, 791:648, DaI4ZwvWsAMQsi1.jpg large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11528
>In this specific context, I would say stopping falls under discouragement. Though I suppose a better would would be "deter".
Then you have an extremely loose definition of discouragement

Discouraging an action from occuring is not the same as stopping it when it is happening.

>The goal is to generally minimize rights violations. At least I think that's the common goal we're discussing.
It's not.
The rate at which rights are violated is irrelevant to their existence, or purpose, as I see it.

As I said prior; Rights do not exist as a flat rule, law, or such other item.
Rights are casus belli.

>I have to ask at this point: Are you talking about in current existing societ, especially the US? Or in all possible societal structures?
Social structures do not inherently have to rely on violence, to be sure.
Your job can fire you for instance.

But any restraint on an individual's direct action within their means, if it is to be absolute, will ultimately have to be backed by violence.

This is not exclusive to states, but nor is it always present in any given social circle.

>Then what is relevant?
As I said; Rights are justification.
They are casus belli.
They exist as the mark in the sand that signifies a just resort to violence.

>I'm now lost as to what exactly you are arguing for.
The nature of rights, the cause for their absolutist application, and ultimately their purpose.

You seem to view rights as a desired outcome.
I, as I said, view rights as casus belli.

>What exactly are you trying to say about violence when it comes to its place in a system trying to balance between authoritarianism and libertarianism?
Depends on what you mean.

I suppose if you want to return to the initial questions imposed by the OP;
Life as a priority is ultimately contradicted by authority, as at the end of the day, dissidents will be slain if they persist.

>>11528
>True, but that's why we have rights, like what is outlined the 2nd amendment, to allow us prevent that dissonance from getting too egregious, or retaliate if it ever does.
My statement persists regardless of this, as it was said within the bounds of societies that already have codified rights and yet still violate them regularly.
The state still must defend its own, regardless of your just resistance and retaliation in the face of its tyranny.
The problem is, the state defaults to that state.
Irrespective of if a state actor is behaving wrongly according to the law, the state will defend them, first, and sort things out after the fact.

Authority is the priority of a state, never rights.
This is because when a state loses authority, it ceases to exist.

 No.11532

>>11530
And be fine with a long, protracted delay on your justice, to boot.

Even if the state ultimately rules in your favor, you're going to end up having the sword of Damocles hanging over your head for a while.
And that's if you're lucky.
If you're unlucky, you'll be sitting in a prison for months if not years, before you are released, let alone before justice is actually served.

Even if the state is worthy of trust, that trust requires significant and unjust sacrifice on your part.
It's why I ultimately describe myself as something of a 'moral anarchist'.
Because my objections to states ultimately boil down to the simple fact that a just state cannot exist.

 No.11534

>>11531
>It's not.
>The rate at which rights are violated is irrelevant to their existence, or purpose, as I see it. As I said prior; Rights do not exist as a flat rule, law, or such other item. Rights are casus belli.
Then we have been having two entirely different conversations this entire time.

I have been discussing government structures and the purpose that rights serve in government structure.

It seems you have been coming from a far more general, and individual, perspective on the purpose or role of rights.

It's definitely clearer now knowing that.

>They exist as the mark in the sand that signifies a just resort to violence.
That is an interesting perspective on rights. I agree in some situations and disagree in others.

>You seem to view rights as a desired outcome.
I view rights as a means to an end. They are a set of priorities that, if followed by the governing power and citizens, result in the goal that the rights are designed around.

So in a sense, yes, I view rights as a means to a desired outcome.

>I suppose if you want to return to the initial questions imposed by the OP;
That was the discussion I was trying to have after all, hence my confusion.

>Life as a priority is ultimately contradicted by authority, as at the end of the day, dissidents will be slain if they persist.
I wouldn't say that's always or even mostly true. Authority is always ripe for abuse and almost always violates rights.

But, in my opinion, the purpose of authority in a more libertarian system is to protect that right to life (assuming it doesn't violate someone else's right to life). And so if you want to protect your life, you'll either need your own method of protecting or avenging your life, or an authority to do those, or both.

Both is far more effective, IMO.

>This is because when a state loses authority, it ceases to exist.
It also ceases to exist when destroyed by the people. The state prioritizes its own existence, even if it must give up a little authority in order to do so.

By arming and educating the people, you can force the state to prioritize rights to a degree out of a desire for self preservation.

Of course the state doesn't want to do that (as you've said "defaults to [defending its authority]"), and it will always try to push for more authority instead of protection of the citizens, but the threat from the citizens definitely rearranges the priorities of the state away from the simple defense of authority.

 No.11535

>>11534
>I have been discussing government structures and the purpose that rights serve in government structure. It seems you have been coming from a far more general, and individual, perspective on the purpose or role of rights.
I would ultimately consider them largely one in the same.
States must respect rights lest they open casus belli for resistance and rebellion.

Though I think the split in discussion is more the result of our reasoning for rights, as mentioned earlier.
I, as I have said, view rights as casus belli, or moral justification.
You seem to look on them as, in a sense, a guide to a moral outcome.
As you put it, a means to an end.

>They are a set of priorities that, if followed by the governing power and citizens, result in the goal that the rights are designed around.
What do you believe rights are designed around?
What is the goal, as you see it?

I suspect this is the aspect we most find disagreement.

>But, in my opinion, the purpose of authority in a more libertarian system is to protect that right to life (assuming it doesn't violate someone else's right to life)
This is what I mean, though.
Regardless of how libertarian a system you create, the priority of life is inconsistent with the enforcement.
Thus my initial disagreement with the notion of life as a right.

As stated; The police will shoot a man who refuses to pay a fine, and resists his arrest.
Irrespective of if the punishment is just or not, if you are to enforce non-violent punishment, you ultimately must do so through violence.

>It also ceases to exist when destroyed by the people.
Yes. But this is a much easier thing to push at bay, compared to the loss of authority.

People can be negotiated with. People prefer comfort. By large, people will simply listen to what someone else tells them, if it's from an authority, by virtue of assuming they know something that they do not.

A state will compromise, yes, but there is a reason no state exists that truly respects rights. Not in the long run.

At best, you get a few years before a necessary revolution as the violations get too severe.
And that's if we accept a cost/benefit outlook.
If we're absolute about it, a state regardless of its attempted nobility violating your rights is inevitable.

 No.11536

>>11535
>What do you believe rights are designed around? What is the goal, as you see it?
My goal in defining rights as I do is to produce maximum stable liberty.

Not simply liberty alone, but liberty that can last at least a few generations before the inevitable rot of government takes hold.

>The police will shoot a man who refuses to pay a fine, and resists his arrest.
I disagree with this assessment. In the overwhelming majority of cases, unless the resisting of arrest also poses a threat to the life of the officers or those around them, a shooting will not occur (despite the rare occurrences that make headlines).

In the overwhelming majority of cases, death and violence is not meted out by the authority until death and violence is already an inevitable threat from the resistor. (except of course in heavily authoritarian regimes where death and violence is used as the solution to most problems)

> The priority of life is inconsistent with the enforcement. Thus my initial disagreement with the notion of life as a right.
I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the enforcement, since most enforcement isn't backed by violence except in already potentially violent circumstances.

And even if it were inconsistent with the enforcement, we also define rights so differently that the right to life, as I've defined it, still applies.

Rights are still rights even if they are violated. Same with any moral system. Moral systems still have worth even if they're not always followed. Rights function the same.

At least, by my definition of "rights".

 No.11537

>>11532
I agree.  At least in that autocracy and Republican government have both performed intolerable deeds, and there is no established proof that it's not possible now and in the future.

 No.11539

>>11536
>My goal in defining rights as I do is to produce maximum stable liberty.
How do we define stable liberty here?

I certainly do not see the current state of the US as a particularly desirable item, in respect to rights, for example.
Is this a system by which we must constantly compromise, trade away rights to a certain point, and then resist, for the higher 'stability'?

> In the overwhelming majority of cases, unless the resisting of arrest also poses a threat to the life of the officers or those around them, a shooting will not occur (despite the rare occurrences that make headlines).
Sure, often enough, people don't bother to take the means to defend themselves into their own hands, and go out unprepared.
But if they have the means to defend themselves, the police are not going to say "Well, it's just a traffic ticket, so we just won't arrest this guy".
That's not how the state operates.

I don't particularly consider violence used to force a kidnapping and imprisonment overly better, morally speaking, besides.
Personally, I quite well consider death far preferable to slavery.

>until death and violence is already an inevitable threat from the resistor.
Yes, which is my point.

I suppose this goes back to an earlier item, but I do not consider shooting a mugger morally wrong.
If someone's trying to beat and kidnap you, you did not initiate the violence.
It's not something you bear any moral responsibility for.

>I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the enforcement, since most enforcement isn't backed by violence except in already potentially violent circumstances.
Again, it objectively is.

I understand you regard a mugging as not violence, but even in such a situation, that is only non-violent if you give up your money.
If you do not, violence is used.

If the state issues you a 200$ fine, and you refuse to pay it, police will be sent to arrest you.
If you refuse to comply with their demands, they will use violence to subdue you.
If you use violence to defend yourself from that situation, they will kill you.
And all this will be done over a measly traffic ticket.

>And even if it were inconsistent with the enforcement, we also define rights so differently that the right to life, as I've defined it, still applies.
Except that the right to life is categorically placed at a lesser status dependent on if you respect the state's authority or not.
Which is my big woe.

Let's say you're dictator of the world or whatever. You create laws of the lands within your framework, prioritizing rights as you say.
If someone does not agree with your framework, and refuses to abide, to respect whatever mundane law you have to assist in preserving life in whatever way, whether it be speeding, jaywalking, or not using a gas canister to hold fuel, violence will have to be used to force them into compliance.
If they defend themselves by means of arms, your state will have to kill them.

But perhaps I'm presuming too much in assuming you're arguing a principled position, and not a pragmatic one.
You do keep referencing majority or rarity of situations.

For me, 1 or 1000, rights are rights, violations are violations. Whether it happens to the majority, or the minority, a violation of rights is unacceptable.

>Rights are still rights even if they are violated. Same with any moral system. Moral systems still have worth even if they're not always followed. Rights function the same.
Sure. I don't disagree.
But regardless of if rights are still rights, violations are still wrong.

I do not take stock in such things as 'the greater good'.

 No.11540

>>11539
>How do we define stable liberty here?
When everyone has the same liberties to the extent that their liberties do not allow them to violate the liberty of others without negative consequence.

If one individual is allowed to use their liberty to take away that same liberty from someone else without consequence, then that is unstable liberty.

As an extreme example, a system that allows slavery (some use their liberty to restrict the liberty of others) is a system of unstable liberty.

>I certainly do not see the current state of the US as a particularly desirable item, in respect to rights, for example.
I also feel that the current state of the US is really bad when it comes to rights.

It's better than most places, and in some states, halfway decent, but there's still a lot of improvement to be done, and the battle only seems to be getting more fierce.

>If you refuse to comply with their demands, they will use violence to subdue you.
Not in most cases. Definitely not when it comes to fines. Unless, of course, you escalate it to that point by initiating the violence, which... why would you want to?

>If you use violence to defend yourself from that situation, they will kill you.
If you try to kill them first, yeah. That's how it works.

I get the feeling that you're trying to compare enforcement of laws with mugging, which, in the context of the system I'm proposing, is completely the opposite of how that analogy should be used. In the majority of cases, the one that enforcement is being used against (the one who violated someone else's rights first) is the initiator (the mugger).

The rights violator is the mugger in your analogy. They're the initiator of the "violence". And those they violated the rights of are the mugged. The mugged are justified in taking escalated action (even through authorized representatives like police) against a mugger that escalates the situation.

>Except that the right to life is categorically placed at a lesser status dependent on if you respect the state's authority or not.
In most cases, one's right to life is only placed lesser if they place someone else's right to life as lesser first.

>Let's say you're dictator of the world or whatever. You create laws of the lands within your framework, prioritizing rights as you say.
I wouldn't be a dictator in such a system, but I can run with that.

>speeding, jaywalking, or not using a gas canister to hold fuel
Those wouldn't be considered violations of the right to life. They would be endangerment, sure, but no reasonable person would consider those a violation of the right to life.

>violence will have to be used to force them into compliance.
Only if they initiate the violence.

>If they defend themselves by means of arms, your state will have to kill them.
Not necessarily, but that will probably be the result, yeah. But that'll be on them for violating the right to life first.

>But perhaps I'm presuming too much in assuming you're arguing a principled position, and not a pragmatic one.
I'm arguing both. I'm arguing a set of principles that have a pragmatic application.

I'm assuming an imperfect, potentially corruptible system, but one that is founded on the idea of prioritizing rights that maximize stable liberty.

>You do keep referencing majority or rarity of situations.
Because that is reality. That's what's pragmatic. The best we can work with is "most situations".

People are imperfect, mistakes are made, and life happens. If you attempt to make all situations function ideally, you will fail.

We can only ever work with "most".

>For me, 1 or 1000, rights are rights, violations are violations. Whether it happens to the majority, or the minority, a violation of rights is unacceptable.
A violation of rights is inevitable. That's why my goal is minimization, not elimination. It's the only pragmatic approach.

 No.11541

>>11540
>Not in most cases. Definitely not when it comes to fines.
In every single case, if you refuse to comply, they will escalate it to violence.
Even if we assume you offer nothing but passive resistance.

If you do not pay a fine, they will come to arrest you.
If you refuse to comply with their arrest, they will use violence to take you in.

As to why one might want to... Not every law is just.
There's plenty of good reason to resist unjust law.

>In the majority of cases, the one that enforcement is being used against (the one who violated someone else's rights first) is the initiator (the mugger).
This is an issue elaborated on later, but I don't care about the "majority".

It is certainly a fact that police have violated the rights of people who've done nothing wrong, plenty of times, and it certainly is something that will happen again.
I'm not invested in commonality. Saying something works most the time still means some of the time it engages in behavior I find thoroughly reprehensible.

>In most cases, one's right to life is only placed lesser if they place someone else's right to life as lesser first.
Then we ought define at what point armed resistance is acceptable.
Because your prioritization of rights gives the impression the only time you can take up arms is if the state is initiating lethal force on people.

A state could enslave its people without killing them.

>Only if they initiate the violence.
Fundamentally false.
Again; Passive resistance will require force to be used to imprison someone who refuses law. Even if we assume they make no physical violent action to defend themselves,  the state initiates the violence.

You're not going to leave someone refusing to pay a fine alone, because otherwise nobody would have any cause to pay a fine.

>Not necessarily, but that will probably be the result, yeah. But that'll be on them for violating the right to life first.
So someone defending their own rights violates others because life takes priority?

I just couldn't agree. I do not think an attempt at imprisonment and slavery being met with armed resistance is immoral.

>Because that is reality. That's what's pragmatic. The best we can work with is "most situations".
Then I would suggest this is where we disagree.

I do not consider a state that abuses a minority acceptable just because the majority are left alone and happy.

>A violation of rights is inevitable. That's why my goal is minimization, not elimination. It's the only pragmatic approach.
Inevitability does not mean it's okay.
Minimization still leaves plenty of evil that should not be excused.

Though I think ultimately fundamentally, the biggest thing we disagree on is the notion of life taking priority, ever.
I do not wish to live a slave.
I would rather die.
I would happily take a blade to my very own throat, if it prevented such a fate.

 No.11542

>>11541
>In every single case, if you refuse to comply, they will escalate it to violence... If you refuse to comply with their arrest, they will use violence to take you in.
Incorrect, unless you count grabbing or grappling with you as violence, then maybe, but not really.

>You're not going to leave someone refusing to pay a fine alone, because otherwise nobody would have any cause to pay a fine.
Who said anything about leaving them alone? Go in and arrest them and take them to prison. That's not violence.

>As to why one might want to... Not every law is just. There's plenty of good reason to resist unjust law.
>Because your prioritization of rights gives the impression the only time you can take up arms is if the state is initiating lethal force on people.
>A state could enslave its people without killing them.
>I do not think an attempt at imprisonment and slavery being met with armed resistance is immoral.
Neither do I in some cases. So I think I see your point now.

I guess I concede that there is a point where their intent to violate many of your rights is equivalent to or worse than intent to violate the right to life, even if they aren't being violent about it.

>I do not consider a state that abuses a minority acceptable just because the majority are left alone and happy.
>Inevitability does not mean it's okay. Minimization still leaves plenty of evil that should not be excused.
I never said it was okay. Not did I excuse it.

I simply said that it is inevitable, and that we have no choice but to work with it and around it.

We cannot simply say "that's unacceptable" and expect reality to bend to our will.

>Though I think ultimately fundamentally, the biggest thing we disagree on is the notion of life taking priority, ever. I do not wish to live a slave. I would rather die.
I understand that point. And I suppose I agree with it in some situations.

I'll take another look at how the my priority philosophy functions and see what adjustments need to be made to its description.

Clearly I cannot say that people have the liberty to take the lives of others just because. However, it's also true that there are points at which the violation of other rights is so excessive that the protection of those rights exceeds the right of the violators to life.

I understand what you're getting at now.

I'll think on it and come back with perhaps a correction or two to my philosophical description.

Thank you!

 No.11543

>>11542
>Incorrect, unless you count grabbing or grappling with you as violence, then maybe, but not really.
I do, yes. Why wouldn't it be?
Is it only violence if you draw blood or something? Or is it more down to damage to the individual, perhaps?

>I never said it was okay. Not did I excuse it.
I suppose the trouble here is that, ultimately, I'd want to fight against it, even if it meant people die.
So when I say 'excusing' I mean more that you seem to be saying resistance through violence isn't acceptable.

But as you say, you see the point by which excessive violations exceed the violator's right to life, so to speak, so I won't push too hard on it here.

Suffice to say for myself, I believe any violation of rights to be unacceptable to the point of meriting armed resistance.
But I am something of an absolutist when it comes to such things.

Either way, I have enjoyed the discussion
So, thank you. Always interesting to explore these things, and see a variety of perspective.

 No.11544

>>11543
>Or is it more down to damage to the individual, perhaps?
That's more like what I would consider violence, yes.

Until harm (physical damage) is actually committed, I don't really feel that the word violence is accurate or appropriate.

There are some things, perhaps, that I might feel cross the line, but I can't think of them at the moment.

>You seem to be saying resistance through violence isn't acceptable.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is what I strongly believe. Partially for religious reasons, and mostly for practical and pragmatic reasons.

I do believe that there exist exceptions where resistance through violence is not just acceptable, but almost a moral obligation.

However, I believe these exceptions only exist in a realm where potential alternatives are either exhausted or impractical to the point of being foolish.

>I believe any violation of rights to be unacceptable to the point of meriting armed resistance.
That's quite a strong position! Not something I would personally take on.

I feel like there are too many ways such an aggressive policy can go wrong through misunderstandings and situations that don't require such escalation.

Though I do suppose it also depends on how broadly or strictly you define your own rights. The stricter you define them, the less such a policy is a problem, I think.

>Always interesting to explore these things, and see a variety of perspective.
Indeed!

I've really enjoy talking with you!

 No.11561

The core problem with a pure libertarian state is 'private tyranny', as Noam Chomsky has put it.

If the state is small and essentially powerless, then gigantic, elite institutions within a country will run roughshod over people's freedoms and liberties. Even to the extent that basically you become a second-class-citizen. Poverty and other social ills run rampant.

This is why anarchists who oppose violent coercion in all forms in principle have to go against all forms of hierarchy. Not just state hierarchy. Everything.

Does it make a difference if your master wears a state uniform or a business suit? Or clerical robes? Or a lab coat? He is still your master. He still controls what you're allowed to say, to read, to eat, to think, and so on. And that shouldn't be.

Although, of course, anarchy does have its own huge set of problems. I'm more inclined to centrist democracy that leans libertarian, although it's all complicated. I suppose.

 No.11562

>>11561
Elite institutions run roughshod over everyone as is primarily due to the ability to coerce and pressure governments to ensure no small independent challengers can arise.
A state practically guarantees such entities will do this.

Though I won't disagree that anarchy ought challenge corporatism just as well.

 No.11563

>>11561
>Does it make a difference if your master wears a state uniform or a business suit?

My opinion is, yes.  I grant it might not in material effect, but much of life is in our heads, and it's easier to mentally resist private tyranny than official tyranny.  Clerical robes are more complicated, if you believe in the associated deity.  And science has no theory of domination, you must add something to it, in my view, to create oppression.

I guess it's the bigger question, do ideas matter?  Or just material condition?

 No.11586

>>11561
Indeed. Not having any state power is terribly dangerous. But having too much is equally so.

My preference is a severely limited state whose primary purpose is to limit the accumulation and abuse of power, including its own.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]