Magnifisyncopathological

And a blanket statement like "because that is the nature of any system predicated upon collectivized coercion." is predicated on what exactly?

And a blanket statement such as "because that is the nature of any system predicated upon collectivized coercion." is predicated on what exactly?

Aren't blanket statements great? Welcome to my website, Ryan. You'll have to join Cameron and I for croquet some time. It has sorta replaced dodgeball for us.

I predicate my statement on the difference between a trader and a thief.

A trader is someone who exchanges something he owns for something someone else owns, voluntarily. Because this is a free exchange, both parties can back out and name their prices at will. The traders appraise the value of the property under exchange and come to the same conclusion: "I want what he has more than what I have." They exchange goods and go about their way. Each trader benefited from the trade and gained a little bit of information about the state of the marketplace, about the values other people have. Without that positive trading action, the values other people say they have reside in the realm of the possible, not the actual.

A thief is different. He takes property without consideration. Since this is an unfree exchange and doesn't share the characteristics of a free trade, only the thief benefits. There is no gain of value information in this transaction other than the knowledge that the thief is a rotten bastard.

The information exchanged in the transaction of the trader is small. But multiply that amongst millions of people. Value heirarchies are revealed. Productive trends emerge. Prosperity is the name of the game. Trust in others grows.

There is little if any of this informational gain if you multiply the transaction of the thief by millions of people. In that scenario, ruin emerges as value is lost over time. Distrust of your fellow man increases.

How does any of this relate to government? I view the government as an organized gang of thieves. Through the euphemism of taxation (theft, in the words of the reality-conscious) the government gains income. By doing so, it destroys or rejects the potential information in the transactions of trade that would have occurred in the absence of those taxes.

But so far, what this "information" is hasn't been clear. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, what has failed? The two so-called basic services any government claims it provides: security and safety. Local, state, and federal governments failed because it could not know the preferences and value heirarchy of the individuals they supposedly protect.

Thus, the governments' surprise at the tens of thousands who stayed behind to face the hurricane. Thus, the governments' inadequate deployment of resources to help them and the confused and contradictory priorities the governments' claimed. Thus, the kind of disaster that Hunter is talking about.

The name of the style of government is immaterial. Parliamentary democracy; tyrannical communism; limited government republic; representative monarchy; none of these are different in the one aspect of their nature that matters. They all initiate force against people who would have otherwise traded something they value for something someone else had that they wanted more. In doing this, not only has government violated the rights of the peaceful, but it has engineered an outcome that is less optimal.

The controlling concept of all government is force, Ryan, in case you haven't noticed.

If it doesn't have enough volunteers it whacks 'em up side the head good and hard until it does.

How do you like it so far?

Well. Sorry for the delay.

And for the record, i would *love* to throw down with some croquet with you two. not only would it be a sport that i haven't ever played, but it would also not involve being repeatedly hit in the head with a fast-moving sphere of galvanized rubber (unless there are some rules that i am missing somewhere).

i should probably clear something up first. i, generally, don't go out of my way to antagonize or in any other way animate those that hold the libertarian/objectivist/ethical egotistical viewpoint. mainly because i am only slightly left of that position myself, but partly because those ethos have some serious flaws that Rand (being my primary source for said philosophies) never quite adequately established or defended.

Within each of the said philosophies i hear the cry of "the market will adjust" as just as utopian and impractical as "to each according to their need". and therein is the tragedy, both libertarianism and its opposite do a disservice to the idea of the social contract. to the libertarian it is overly oppressive and to the communist it is a license for slavery. each is simply to purist for my moderate sensibilities.

so, i don't normally try to engage people on the tenets of those philosophies, but that's what late night blog reading and bourbon will do to you.

my main point is this: any philosophy that doesn't honor the substitution principle is suspect. you point out that the failure of a dunder-head and his mismanaged agency is somehow necessary to the idea that the social contract (and any instance of any government based upon it) is intrinsically flawed.

Does the same idea hold true when a government operating under the idea of the social contract pulls off a unmitigated success? Would that prove the inherent worth of the social contract and any government that professed it? or would you say they just got lucky?

i think that you may be placing too much significance on the monumental mistake of one instance of governmental (in)action. i hardly think that it is the stunning repudiation of government as your original statement seemed to make it out to be.

till next time, ~R

(and call me about that croquet, seriously)

Ryan, you'll get that call. We tend to go play on Sunday evenings around 6pm, typically at Pease Park off Lamar and between 24th and 15th.

I'm not familiar with the substitution principle you mention, so you may have to expand that concept for me. Searching for it gets me this guy Liskov which clears it up a little.

We have the tricky problem of identifying an "unmitigated government success," a task that seems so troublesome as to be an issue all on its own. That halts the discussion right there. I cannot be willing to assume such a thing exists for purposes of this argument.

But, if a government agency or program accomplishes a good goal - like funding a person's rise out of poverty - would I be willing to say that is therefore in the nature of government and the social contract to be a success? I am not the kind of anti-government ranter who says everything the state does is not only wrong but counter-productive. I am willing to recognize the state can help people. Just as theft does benefit someone, the state can also benefit someone.

But this is not the core of my argument, which is moral. Practicalities come second for me. A thief that gives his loot to a starving man certainly did improve the condition of the starving man...but the immoral act of theft still occurred and should not have taken place. So a "success" might be the result of a government by social contract; yet I'd still oppose it because the means to that end were wrong.

I think the social contract is one of those White-Out terms employed to give what is in reality a grand scheme of aggression the halo of mutual and voluntary shine. Where is this contract? Where did I sign? What are the terms for leaving it? Who arbitrates disputes? And can those answers be made without reference to the government...the party with which I allegedly contracted? Because if you cannot, then you've come to the situation where I must appeal to the very force to which I'm opposed for the relief I seek. Furthermore, my life and the things I value are held at the mercy of the agents of that force from beginning to end. That kind of contract is politely called monopolized justice. I'd call it neo-slavery.

Anyway, thanks for dropping by and not being the antagonistic jerk found in these kinds of discussions. I'll send you a message about the next croquet game.

Yeah, i am not sure that there is a formal definiton for the philosophical aspect of the substituiton principle. i have lifted the idea from some texts on computational linguistics, but it tends to suit the need when discussing arguments. briefly, if a an action has a truth value, then it has the same truth value for whatever agent is involved. if it is wrong to accept soft campaign money, then it is wrong regardlesss of the political party that is doing the accepting, etc. as you can imagine, this priciple is widely ignored by pundits everywhere and seems to be the backbone of all partisan politics.

So, i think that this discussion is moving dangerously close to a "first principle" arena and i recall reading in one of your blogs somewhere that you usually found those discussions unfruitful. i tend to agree with that mainly because we are moving into “core belief” areas that more often that not even rational folk are just not going to see eye to eye on. with people less educated and eloquent as yourself, they can get right nasty.

and i would enjoy examining your last argument point by point (rubbing hands together). maybe we can pick this up in another discussion. i find your interpretation of the social contract *interesting* and implicit in it your understanding of the nature of humans. i would be interested to hear your definition of the social contract and your take on the alternatives. while i agree with most of your statements, i don’t see them as being wholly applicable to a great number of people; as far as i understand the alternatives, i don't see much more than some sort of hobbesian nightmare ensuing from them. perhaps our differences lay in a matter of simple semantics. but we can save that for later...

i have pretty much dropped out of myspace, unless there is a group that you can recommend for a nice spirited debate. i still check mail there from time to time, but should you want to get a hold of me, hit me at my email listed here.

till later, ~R

"if a an action has a truth value, then it has the same truth value for whatever agent is involved"

I can accept that; it is in fact one way of describing the kind of rights-based justice I advocate. Stealing is always wrong, murder is always wrong.

I vaguely remember addressing "first principles" in a not-too-distance post, but I don't remember saying or implying I personally find such discussions useless. I might have been talking about Professor Glenn Reynolds ( http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001305.html )...

I'm all about people voluntarily entering into agreements and contracts with each other. But as I see it, the "social contract" fails to meet that standard of voluntarity (making up words!). Oh, and Hobbes was a punk. Ha! Grist for a few beers in the future? I'll send you an e-mail.

*laughter*

fair enough. i think Rand is responsible for some serious philosophical hackery, so those together ought to get some interesting conversation rolling nicely.

~R