Freedomain Radio

bockman:

skidoo:

bockman:

In your opinion do you think that this post came across as a heartfelt and genuine invitation to a civil and intelligent debate?

Are you asking me? Yes, that's what it is.

Nexalacer said "all violence is immoral," and then went on to simply offer a different form of coercive government as an alternative to the current state. Those two prongs pretty much popped his raft. I'm guessing some of you could do better, and I'd be fascinated to hear the arguments and proposals

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.  Yes, that question was for you.  Isn't it funny how I had quite a different reaction to your post, as opposed to the assertion that you're making now, which is that it was a heartfelt and genuine invitation to civil and intelligent debate? For example, you write:

Whats-his-name didn't do so hot, so maybe someone else would like to take a turn?

Maybe it's just me, but I for one try to learn the name of the person (or at least the screen name of the person) with whom I'm debating. Were I the person debating you, it certainly would make me pause for a moment when I was referred to as "what's his name". May I ask, what were you thinking when you referred to him in that manner?

What an odd question. Umm, I was thinking, "I can't remember that guy's screen name, and in the interest of expediency, I'm not going to take the time to go look it up right now."

Next you write:

But please don't bother if logic offends you. Most of us give no quarter to the presumed or false premise.

That's a tad snarky, don't you think?

No, it's just a pre-condition, set with the hope that time won't be wasted.

I have pretty thick skin, having debated dozens and dozens of people both on the Internet and in person, and I've seen a lot of different tactics and styles when it comes to discussing this issue. While I certainly wasn't offended, it does strike me as kind of insulting to presume that logic would offend anyone interested in this conversation.

I didn't presume that logic would offend anyone interested in this conversation. Note the use of the word "if."

I have to tell you in all honesty that I perused the thread of conversation and I feel that your characterizations of what Nexalacer wrote are in error.

"Characterizations?" They're just simple facts.

I know through my interactions on this board and in the chat room and I've never heard him offer up a substitute system of coercive government as being the solution to our current form of government (which is also based on coercion).

He speaks of "private security forces" and "dispute resolution organizations." These are coercive systems. Ask Max Stirner.

I haven't read every single post in that thread, however (and again, this is a generalized statement), I don't see anyone in this website saying "all violence is immoral".

It's ironic, given the above, that nexalacer's very first post on this topic reads, "Also, if we can accept that the state is immoral, along with all other forms of violence...."

Some 12 pages later he did retract his assertion by saying he meant to make the distinction that the initiation of violence is immoral (which thoroughly confuses his original argument).

What is often put forward as a truth statement is, "the initiation of the use of force is immoral."  I'd be very curious what your thoughts are on that truth assertion-- in fact knowing your opinion on that truth assertion could save us both reams of typing and time.

Is the initiation of the use of force moral?

That entirely depends on your definition of "force." If I anticipate "immoral" force, but it hasn't actually occurred yet, is it OK for me to strike pre-emptively?

Thank you very much for coming over here and posting.

You're welcome.

I'm a huge fan of the skeptics guide to the universe podcasts.

Me too.

skidoo:

bockman:

 Is the initiation of the use of force moral?

That entirely depends on your definition of "force." If I anticipate "immoral" force, but it hasn't actually occurred yet, is it OK for me to strike pre-emptively?

Logic fan:

skidoo:

bockman:

 Is the initiation of the use of force moral?

That entirely depends on your definition of "force." If I anticipate "immoral" force, but it hasn't actually occurred yet, is it OK for me to strike pre-emptively?

If you anticipate violence from someone, is that not the same a that one initiating the use of force? Like, if you see someone raise a gun towards you, you can use violence to defend yourself even before he shoot you. Right?

No. The anticipation doesn't have to be as overt and definite as witnessing the physical act of someone drawing a gun right in front of you. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where certainty meets judgment; this is where idealism meets reality.

That is certainly true, of course, my perspective at least is that it is almost completely irrelevant to any modern discussion of ethics.

For instance, since we allow governments to clearly initiate the use of force against their citizens in the forms of taxation, kidnapping, and imprisonment - and since war, the most terrible of all human evils, is utterly dependent upon the governmental power of taxation and its monopoly over the creation of money - our work is cut out for us for at least a generation or two, in terms of helping people understand the evils of statism, and the viable and virtuous alternatives of a stateless society.

In other words, I view the world to be suffering under a horrendous plague called statism, which causes tens of millions of people to be murdered, imprisoned, enslaved and raped every year - and like any good doctor performing basic triage, I am spending my energies communicating as best as I can the inevitable evils that arise from the existence of governments.

It certainly is true that under certain obscure situations, "self-defense" can be a gray area, but I have never experienced those -- and no one I have ever known has experienced those situations, and no one who has ever posted on this board or e-mailed me has ever experienced those situations -- and so I think it behooves moralists to focus on the greatest plagues, rather than the obscure ailments that occur to a tiny majority of people. In my opinion - and I'm not putting you in this category of course - claiming to be a moralist while ignoring the greatest evils and endlessly fussing over the tiny and obscure problems is worse than irresponsible, it is actually and actively corrupt. The world desperately needs logical and philosophical moralists who are willing to take on the big and important and essential evils of the world, not neurotic little hair-splitters who only confuse, disorient and fill others with contempt for the noble pursuit of ethics and the value of philosophy as a whole.

Of course, this is only a statement of my position, since I have not read anything on this other board, but I hope it clarifies at least where I am coming from...

While I certainly do appreciate the time you took to respond to my post, your responses lead me to believe that you are quibbling over semantics in order to avoid the heart of my question.  I could be wrong of course, it's just a feeling that I have.  Given that I have had this sort of discussion with people like you before and found it to be not very enjoyable, I'll discontinue now.

bockman:

While I certainly do appreciate the time you took to respond to my post, your responses lead me to believe that you are quibbling over semantics in order to avoid the heart of my question.  I could be wrong of course, it's just a feeling that I have.

You are wrong. As his response indicates above, your philosophical mentor apparently took my question seriously.

Given that I have had this sort of discussion with people like you before and found it to be not very enjoyable, I'll discontinue now.

I'm genuinely disappointed that you're so quick to dismiss a sincere attempt at discourse.

I got a cool video on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsUxCjEjtc

Stefan Molyneux:

That is certainly true, of course,

It's true that the axiom that it is immoral to initiate violence is somewhat...flexible?

my perspective at least is that it is almost completely irrelevant to any modern discussion of ethics.

I'm trying to understand your perspective, through reading your essays and the writings of your proxies. This concept comes across to an outsider as a core principal, and immediately raises questions such as the one I posed above.

For instance, since we allow governments to clearly initiate the use of force against their citizens in the forms of taxation, kidnapping, and imprisonment - and since war, the most terrible of all human evils, is utterly dependent upon the governmental power of taxation and its monopoly over the creation of money - our work is cut out for us for at least a generation or two, in terms of helping people understand the evils of statism, and the viable and virtuous alternatives of a stateless society.

Yes, your work is cut out for you. And to convince me and the rest of the proletariat that your alternative to the current state will prove any better than the current systems, you'll have to do things such as 1) convince us that the current state is systemically immoral and 2) that your version would be closer to a moral ideal.

In other words, I view the world to be suffering under a horrendous plague called statism, which causes tens of millions of people to be murdered, imprisoned, enslaved and raped every year - and like any good doctor performing basic triage, I am spending my energies communicating as best as I can the inevitable evils that arise from the existence of governments.

This seems like an example of the false continuum fallacy or the hasty generalization fallacy. Obviously, not all states are created equal. Or, at the very least, not all states are guilty of the same crimes, to the same degree. Are you sure that all statism is the problem and not particular forms or instances of statism?

It certainly is true that under certain obscure situations, "self-defense" can be a gray area, but I have never experienced those -- and no one I have ever known has experienced those situations, and no one who has ever posted on this board or e-mailed me has ever experienced those situations

But obviously you recognize this exists, and it speaks directly to the logical foundation of the "initiation of violence is immoral" axiom. Which seems, in turn, to be a core component of your system of morality.

-- and so I think it behooves moralists to focus on the greatest plagues, rather than the obscure ailments that occur to a tiny majority of people.

So then your system should properly be seen as flexible and non-dogmatic, adaptable to changing circumstances?

In my opinion - and I'm not putting you in this category of course - claiming to be a moralist while ignoring the greatest evils and endlessly fussing over the tiny and obscure problems is worse than irresponsible, it is actually and actively corrupt.

But you would agree that the brickmason who lays the nearly invisible foundation of the house has an equal if not more important role than the carpenter working among the trusses or the painters and electricians who apply the finishing touches?

The world desperately needs logical and philosophical moralists who are willing to take on the big and important and essential evils of the world,

Does religion have to go first, or does statism have to go first? Both at the same time? Or is religion OK?

not neurotic little hair-splitters who only confuse, disorient and fill others with contempt for the noble pursuit of ethics and the value of philosophy as a whole.

I just hope you don't confuse legitimate and thoughtful questions and criticism with "neurotic little hair-splitters."

Of course, this is only a statement of my position, since I have not read anything on this other board, but I hope it clarifies at least where I am coming from...

Pardon me, as I don't intend the following to be offensive, but regarding the question of the initiation of violence, based on your writings and those of your followers, it seems to me your position is that it may be a logical inconsistency undermining your entire world view, but it doesn't concern you at the moment, so you're not going to worry about it. Which isn't a problem if your system of morality is actually more flexible than I gleaned from your works and the writings of others.

Thanks for the response. And please don't hesitate to just point me to papers or previous posts of yours if they answer these queries. I don't expect you to repeat yourself ad infinitum. :-)

Thanks for your excellent responses. I am against religion as much as the state of course, as both are irrational and abusive power structures, like too many families.

If you have a little time, you might find my free book on secular ethics to be interesting, since I do attempt to create a rational framework for morals without either gods or governments - it is available in PDF or audiobook here - I would be happy to ship you a print copy if you'd prefer, just email me your address at host@freedomainradio.com

Thanks!

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

I got a cool video on this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsUxCjEjtc

Nice video.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the scale of the response to nexalacer's thread. It seems to be one of the larger topics in its forum.

Not so sure about the quality, 'cos I hate reading uber long threads. For now I'm satisfied that the topic and FDR are a blip on the radar over there.

MattK:

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

I got a cool video on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsUxCjEjtc

Nice video.

Illogical. Already been through this. Some kid came over to our site a couple months back and tried to make this argument. Dudn't fly.

The burden of proof is clearly not on the "statists," as we have over 200 years of concrete evidence (here in the US of A) for consistent advances in everything from human rights, to the accessibility of opportunities to fulfill almost any calling, to basic quality of life. And sure, we have our downturns (of various forms), but there's no logical reason to believe we won't continue to persevere through them just as we always have.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone proposing an alternative way to structure society in the interests of security and prosperity (maybe it's a government, maybe not; whatever). But you (the one with the alternative plan) have to provide evidence and/or a logical foundation that clearly demonstrates how your system is going to be more effective, more efficient, and more morally acceptable (maybe through a fundamental morality quotient, maybe by virtue of moral consistency; whatever).

The state is like the god fairy tale as the automobile is like the Frisbee. Translation: terrible analogy.

skidoo:

This seems like an example of the false continuum fallacy or the hasty generalization fallacy. Obviously, not all states are created equal. Or, at the very least, not all states are guilty of the same crimes, to the same degree.

And this "seems" to to be a victim of weasel words

Are you sure that all statism is the problem and not particular forms or instances of statism?

Are you saying you don't know what the argument is? You just judged it as a fallacy, Which is it, either the argument is a fallacy or you don't know what the argument is?

I hope you fellows know that you're not debating, or exploring ideas, but rather simply having a fight. I am sure it would be instructive to look into your own personal histories to try to understand where you got the habits of engaging at this kind of destructive level, because I can't imagine that there is too much that is pleasurable in it in the long run...

Thanks for coming by skidoo, I'm glad to see these communities interacting and I'm glad you're up for some solid discourse.

skidoo:

The burden of proof is clearly not on the "statists," as we have over 200 years of concrete evidence (here in the US of A) for consistent advances in everything from human rights, to the accessibility of opportunities to fulfill almost any calling, to basic quality of life. And sure, we have our downturns (of various forms), but there's no logical reason to believe we won't continue to persevere through them just as we always have.

I think that's not true at all. There are many ways in which things "in" the USA are consistently getting worse. For instance, when public education was first started literacy levels were very high--as far back as the 1790s, literacy rates were 90 percent, mainly in the north and lower in the south. Nowadays, functional adult literacy is in many parts of the country something like 30 percent.

Another problem is that of the expanding use of the military and acts of war: for the decade + before the invasion and occupation of iraq, the US sustained an embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people through the deprivation of medicine and food. As far as I can tell, this kind of thing is a recent phenomenon for the US. One might say that the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular so this kind of thing isn't going to happen again, but the Vietnam war got just as unpopular and did a similar amount of casualties over a comparable time scale three decades ago, and this still happened.  

Economically, the burdens of inflation, taxation, the national debt, and the looming albatross of "social security" have gotten worse and remained unaddressed despite decades of talk about how we've got to do something. The US may well have trillions in unfunded liabilities and they're not going away any time soon. The recent crisis in mortgage markets is yet another example of the government's destructive meddling in the economy, but not only is there little indication that this fact is recognized but the government is rushing to rescue their failed policy--and from what I've read almost anybody who's anybody is blaming the "free market".

As far as I can tell there's no historical precedent for the idea of an inevitable forward march of progress, with or without interruptions, and the particular case you cite looks like it's going in the wrong direction to me.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone proposing an alternative way to structure society in the interests of security and prosperity (maybe it's a government, maybe not; whatever). But you (the one with the alternative plan) have to provide evidence and/or a logical foundation that clearly demonstrates how your system is going to be more effective, more efficient, and more morally acceptable (maybe through a fundamental morality quotient, maybe by virtue of moral consistency; whatever).

I think this is a misrepresentation of what we're saying. I don't think you're doing it deliberately, mind you, it's just a result of how most people treat the topic, like how even atheists will refer to the Christian idea of god as a "he" simply because that's how most people do it and it's a pain to consciously change.

I think the misrepresentation is this: we're not proposing an alternative way to structure society. Yes, there's things like DROs, but those are really just thought experiments. In actuality, what we're doing is this: when someone poses the question "how do we structure society?" we say "I don't know, but not through the immoral means of the initiation of force." In the same way, an atheist might answer the question posed by the religious "but how do we live our lives?" simply by saying "I don't know, but not by believing false things to be true"; similarly, a subject of the Soviet Union might ask "but how do we produce and distribute shoes without the government?" and a free-marketeer might respond "I don't know, but not through state control of industry, which, by the way, isn't working."

In other words, we're not proposing a system, we're proposing ending systems based on immoral actions as such. The theories of god and communism have failed to carry their burdens of proof, and from the arguments I've given above I don't think the notion of organizing society through violence has either.

But you (the one with the alternative plan) have to provide evidence and/or a logical foundation that clearly demonstrates how your system is going to be more effective, more efficient, and more morally acceptable (maybe through a fundamental morality quotient, maybe by virtue of moral consistency; whatever).

I do agree with you partially here: the burden of proof is upon anyone proposing a moral theory. I think that Stefan met it with his book UPB, though of course I'm open to argument on that topic. I think that for the most efficient debate you should read that book, which can be downloaded here (761 kilobytes). I hate to have to refer you to a book, but otherwise the idea is somewhat hidden within a library of a thousand podcasts (and I personally don't find it too easy to explain) and it's a pretty good summation of where I and others here are coming from.

I look forward to your response.