Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy and Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Consider the times in which Hobbes lived.  The hundred years war that lasted 116 years and the mayhem that took place between Catholics and Protestants on the continent.  Hobbes was empirically correct in his skepticism about natural "good behavior" between humans.   Stephen Pinker has pointed out that per capita the world is much less violent now than it was during Hobbes time.  

Now you're making a completely different third claim. Okay cool, Walter Block has written criticisms of Stephen Pinker's empirical claims about the state and less violence. Sure, Hobbes may have thought cooperation impossible because he saw lots of war. But what does that have to do with your claims that, hey, law is a good thing. Still totally different from Hobbes' claims. Still doesn't tell us whether or not Hobbes claim that social cooperation without an absolute sovereign is justified.

 

Moreover, how can you claim Hobbes' theories are empirically verified by the Hundred Years' War? Do you know what empirical verification is? All Hobbes can empirically verify is "I observed a war." That tells us nothing about whether or not humans are capabale of social cooperation without an absolute sovereign. Any given instance of war doesn't tell us anything about whether or not there are other possibilities in other instances.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're making a completely different third claim. Okay cool, Walter Block has written criticisms of Stephen Pinker's empirical claims about the state and less violence. Sure, Hobbes may have thought cooperation impossible because he saw lots of war. But what does that have to do with your claims that, hey, law is a good thing. Still totally different from Hobbes' claims. Still doesn't tell us whether or not Hobbes claim that social cooperation without an absolute sovereign is justified.

Law has its dark side, to be sure,  but look at a country where there is no law.  Somalia.   I would want to live in anything like that.   Without some kind of adjusting, adjudicating regulatory function to discourage really bad behavior  we would be in for a world of pain.

 

And here is a practical question:  Without a central taxing authority how would we afford a defense against countries who are perfectly willing to steal from their citizens and subjects the money to make very heavy duty military  material.   Do you think we could maintain a sufficiently good Army on a voluntary subscription system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law has its dark side, to be sure,  but look at a country where there is no law.  Somalia.   I would want to live in anything like that.   Without some kind of adjusting, adjudicating regulatory function to discourage really bad behavior  we would be in for a world of pain.

 

And here is a practical question:  Without a central taxing authority how would we afford a defense against countries who are perfectly willing to steal from their citizens and subjects the money to make very heavy duty military  material.   Do you think we could maintain a sufficiently good Army on a voluntary subscription system?

Sorry I really want to try and understand, but as far as I can tell, all of your posts seem logically unconnected to each other and to mine. Okay, sure, having no law is bad, but who in the world said we should have no law? What does that have to do with Hobbes as previously discussed?

 

Actually the idea of Somalia having no law is a myth, it has a quite historic system of customary law. Note I'm not saying its legal system is in any way libertarian or something to model, but that's different from saying there are no laws to follow if you go to Somalia.

 

As far as national defense and security, of course there is a ton of libertarian literature on this out there, anyone serious-minded about such topics can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I really want to try and understand, but as far as I can tell, all of your posts seem logically unconnected to each other and to mine. Okay, sure, having no law is bad, but who in the world said we should have no law? What does that have to do with Hobbes as previously discussed?

Hobbes' basic thesis is that men living in a state of no law,  each man doing as he sees fit will live in a state of perpetual war.  There will be no industry, no culture and as Hobbes put it,.  the life of man will be nasty,  brutish and short.   I concur with his assumption.  Where there is no law or authority to deter violence the strong  plunder, rape, injure and kill the weak.  Look at Africa in the lawless countries.  It is just as Hobbes presumed. 

 

So Hobbes thesis that an authority to impose constraints on the community is necessary for any kind of social peace and order is correct.

 

A lawless land will become a desolation of destruction and woe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hobbes' basic thesis is that men living in a state of no law,  each man doing as he sees fit will live in a state of perpetual war.  There will be no industry, no culture and as Hobbes put it,.  the life of man will be nasty,  brutish and short.   I concur with his assumption.  Where there is no law or authority to deter violence the strong  plunder, rape, injure and kill the weak.  Look at Africa in the lawless countries.  It is just as Hobbes presumed. 

 

So Hobbes thesis that an authority to impose constraints on the community is necessary for any kind of social peace and order is correct.

 

A lawless land will become a desolation of destruction and woe.

No, again, that's not Hobbes' thesis.

 

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A planetary federation based on objective law, quite Heinleinian. Hard to imagine the amount of cultural change that would require, we have a hard time  in the West not forgetting principles let only learnin' new ones. Way off topic but are there still vestiges of the caste system in India and/or how westernised is India culturally?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A planetary federation based on objective law, quite Heinleinian. Hard to imagine the amount of cultural change that would require, we have a hard time  in the West not forgetting principles let only learnin' new ones. Way off topic but are there still vestiges of the caste system in India and/or how westernised is India culturally?

 

It was once considered inconcievable that Europe could be brought under a single soverign entity, but the EU seems to be making such progress every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people refer to "small vs big government" they typically mean the percent of GDP that the government takes up. A government that takes up only a small ammount of GDP could exist on a planetary level yes.

You do understand that is a utopian fantasy.

 

So to make your fantasy into reality, what event will happen to make the majority of people personally responsible enough to govern themselves? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that is a utopian fantasy.

So to make your fantasy into reality, what event will happen to make the majority of people personally responsible enough to govern themselves?



These things take time. If I told a feudal lord from england that one day english speaking people will have a giant country in the west where they all vote for their leaders and there are no nobles, he would have called it a utopian fantasy.

I never said that this would happen any time soon, it could take thousands of years. As I said earlier this was a theoretical point. Edited by FeatherFall
fixed quotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, again, that's not Hobbes' thesis.

 

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

 

 

Really?  Then account for "nasty, brutish and short"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These things take time. If I told a feudal lord from england that one day english speaking people will have a giant country in the west where they all vote for their leaders and there are no nobles, he would have called it a utopian fantasy.

I never said that this would happen any time soon, it could take thousands of years. As I said earlier this was a theoretical point.

Don't hold your breath... things will get a lot worse before they ever get better.  :lol:

 

The present vector is a downward spiral of more and more morally and fiscally irresponsible people failing to govern their own behavior creating and bigger and bigger government bureaucracies who they need to be their "mommie".

 

It's each individual's own personal responsibility to autonomously act to save themselves from becoming collatoral damage just as did the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...things will get a lot worse before they ever get better."

"The present vector is a downward spiral of more and more morally and ..."

Is this more "revealed word"?

No... just an objective observation of how the rampant growth of government bureaucracy perfectly tracks with the epidemic of personal irresponsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What number of cases of personal irresponsibility are you referring to?

What number of cases did you expect based on recent experiences?

 

What data do you have on the rampant growth of government bureaucracy?

 

What is the comparison you have that shows the perfect tracking between personal irresponsibility and government bureaucracy? Is it merely correlative or do you think it is causal or something other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A planetary federation based on objective law, quite Heinleinian. Hard to imagine the amount of cultural change that would require, we have a hard time  in the West not forgetting principles let only learnin' new ones. Way off topic but are there still vestiges of the caste system in India and/or how westernised is India culturally?

   

   I read him before I read Rand, so I take some inspiration from his craziness. 

 

   Wikipedia says its a problem but they are gradually healing from that. Overall India wants to be part of the world, not some backwards joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What number of cases of personal irresponsibility are you referring to?

Just two examples: 46,000,000 people are on government food stamps. 31,000,000 kids eat government food in government schools. This requires a huge government bureaucracy of employed public union looters to service the demands of tens of millions of moochers, just as Ayn Rand predicted.

 

You don't believe that the government just mgaically got that big all by itself for no reason at all, did you?

What number of cases did you expect based on recent experiences?

I expect there to continue to be more and more moochers who can't govern their own behavior needing more and more transfer of wealth looters to service them, just as Ayn Rand predicted.

What data do you have on the rampant growth of government bureaucracy?

Current government debt: $16,618,701,810,927.77 (from debt clock)

What is the comparison you have that shows the perfect tracking between personal irresponsibility and government bureaucracy? Is it merely correlative or do you think it is causal or something other?

The need for government is the personal irresponsibility of people who fail to govern themselves, and that need for government is expressed by the size of government. For people have created the government they deserve in their own image.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What number of cases did you expect based on recent experiences?

"I expect there to continue to be more and more moochers who can't govern their own behavior needing more and more transfer of wealth looters to service them, just as Ayn Rand predicted."

 

Yes, you expect there to continue to be more and more, but to compare to the 46 million people on food stamps and the related 31 million kids eating "government food", - what is the number you expected to establish validation for the use of the concept 'epidemic'?

 

You provided the current government debt. What was asked for was the data on rampant growth of government bureaucracy, i.e. especially,  the number of government officials and administrators?

 

A comparison would be how these two numbers "perfectly track" one another - preferably over time showing the increase of one relative to the increase of the other, a mathematical formula that would substantiate or show the "perfect tracking" relationship would be nice, of  your claim, not an ambiguous retort that simply eludes to the specific request of 'correlative', 'causal' or 'something other' (implicitly: please specify if 'something other'.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What number of cases did you expect based on recent experiences?

"I expect there to continue to be more and more moochers who can't govern their own behavior needing more and more transfer of wealth looters to service them, just as Ayn Rand predicted."

 

Yes, you expect there to continue to be more and more, but to compare to the 46 million people on food stamps and the related 31 million kids eating "government food", - what is the number you expected to establish validation for the use of the concept 'epidemic'?

There are 55.5 million K-12 kids in government school. 31 million out of those 55.5 million eat government food. That's almost 60% of all K-12 kids. I regard almost 6 out of ten to be an epidemic. Clearly, you don't.  And that's fine... these figures are posted just to demonstrate the difference between our two views. And that's not just government food... it's government food in government schools. This is not the government food stamp program. That's another program.

You provided the current government debt. What was asked for was the data on rampant growth of government bureaucracy, i.e. especially,  the number of government officials and administrators?

You can track the growth of government by how much money is spent.

 

US-Gross-National-Debt-1972-2012-graph.p

 

chart-4.jpg

 

This chart stops at 2.5 trillion dollars in 2005. Last year, 2012 was 3.6 trillion dollars which is beyond the parameters of the graph.

 

From the nature of your response, you obviously disagree that this is rampant growth of government... so we'll just have to acknowledge that we each have two completely different views regarding the size and growth of government and its direct relation to irresponsible people who fail to govern themselves and need the government to be their mommie.

 

Ayn Rand predicted that this would happen in Atlas Shrugged. Government would continue to tax, regulate, and litigate more and more until it collapses of its own unproductive dead weight. The best any individual American can do is to stand a safe distance away so as not to be brought down along with it.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still did not address the number you would expect. You chose epidemic to couch your expression with. I just asked you to substantiate it. 6 out of 10 kids is not an epidemic if you expected 59-61 out of 100.

 

Your two charts show a rampant growth of governement debt and of government spending, not of bureaucracy. It is not surprisng that they appear similar. If you had meant spending, you should have said spending. You chose bureaucracy.

 

Still, I asked for a comparison of the number of irresponsible people perfectly tracking growth of govenment bureaucracy.

 

If I were to use your claim to discuss with someone else, they might, and quite legitimately so, request evidence to back it up.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still did not address the number you would expect.

That's because there aren't any expectations when the number of moochers eating government food matches the personal irresponsibility of not providing it for themselves.

 

I heard this wisdom spoken in a movie:

 

"Expectation is only planned resentment."

 

 

You chose epidemic to couch your expression with. I just asked you to substantiate it. 6 out of 10 kids is not an epidemic if you expected 59-61 out of 100.

That's fine. I consider 6 out of 10 dependent on the State to be an epidemic of personal irresponsibility... and you don't. This helps to clarify the contrast between our two views. And since you don't... how many need to be dependent on the government before you regard it as an epidemic? 80%? 100%?

Your two charts show a rampant growth of governement debt and of government spending, not of bureaucracy. It is not surprisng that they appear similar. If you had meant spending, you should have said spending. You chose bureaucracy.

 

Still, I asked for a comparison of the number of irresponsible people perfectly tracking growth of govenment bureaucracy.

 

If I were to use your claim to discuss with someone else, they might, and quite legitimately so, request evidence to back it up.

Government bureaucracies spend money, and their size is directly proportional to their spending. The vectors on both graphs are perfectly clear. 

 

And here again, we each disagree on the growth of the government. To me, it is an accurate indicator of personal moral failure... and for you it is not.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's fine. I consider 6 out of 10 dependent on the State to be an epidemic of personal irresponsibility... and you don't. This helps to clarify the contrast between our two views. And since you don't... how many need to be dependent on the government before you regard it as an epidemic? 80%? 100%?

Government bureaucracies spend money, and their size is directly proportional to their spending. The vectors on both graphs are perfectly clear. 

 

And here again, we each disagree on the growth of the government. To me, it is an accurate indicator of personal moral failure... and for you it is not.

An epidemic is a rise in the number of cases over and above expectations. If you have no expectations of how many people should be irresponsible, by what measure are you identifying it as an epidemic?

Considering that I have only asked for the evidence to substantiate your claim and still await it, and furthermore I have not posited my take on the matter, it is presumptuous of you to note disagreements on my behalf.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 An epidemic is a rise in the number of cases over and above expectations. If you have no expectations of how many people should be irresponsible, by what measure are you identifying it as an epidemic?

The pivotal word is "should". I said nothing about "should". I only referenced what "is".

Considering that I have only asked for the evidence to substantiate your claim and still await it

I already posted clear evidence in those charts. The proof of epidemic of personal moral failure is the huge size of government itself. If 60% of a group of people had a disease, any rational person would regard it as an epidemic. You don't regard 60% as an epidemic, so that defines the difference between our two views.

, and furthermore I have not posited my take on the matter, it is presumptuous of you to note disagreements on my behalf.

There is obviously a disagreement... ;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...