Political Atheism

[ImaginalDisc]

I like government. I'm well aware that it's a social consruct, but that doesn't make it unreal, any more than a flock of birds is unreal. Governments are an emergent property of human behavior and while I have a soft spot for anarchists as a sort of perpetual check on government authority, I very much prefer living in a society where children are educated, laws are passed and enforced, and fires are put out by highly trained specialists who will put any fire in their jurisdiction.

 

[phantomb]

Thank-you all for taking the time to post.

What I am hearing from several posters is an axiom that sounds like: 'Morality is whatever the majority of the people say it is.' In other words the mob rules.

I think its important to define morality, to continue discussing it. I would define morals as a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify universally preferable human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the universal behaviour of matter.

You're avoiding making a strong statement by using the word "claiming". Do you believe in a universal, objective morality or not? If you do, where does it come from, and how would you go about identifying it?

As you have noted, I would define morality as whatever the people around you say it is. My earlier posts contain some examples of why I believe this, and what I think it means.

If morality is subjective then it would seem to be completely irrelevant and more of a description of what is going on.

I wouldn't say that a subjective view of morality makes morality as a concept irrelevant, but that would really depend on what you mean by irrelevant.

The mob is lusting destruction therefore it is moral for it to loot and pillage and riot, the gang is lusting the girl it is therefore moral for them to rape her

Yes. If a society decides that rape is okay, then anyone who commits a rape is not committing an amoral act within that society.

, Bush is the leader of our gang therefore it is moral to cause the death of over 600,000 Iraqi's, slavery is aaccepted by most people therefore it is moral to own a slave.

What does Bush have to do with anything? In places where slavery is accepted by most people yes, it is considered moral to own a slave.

In my society, we do not accept slavery, and thus, it is not moral to own a slave. In addition, I have been raised to believe, and have decided for myself, that slavery is not a good or fair thing, so even if I was dumped in the middle of a society in which slavery was acceptable, I still would not own a slave and would attempt to convince others not to take slaves as well.

Men that wear government ID are taking my money therefore it is moral for them to do this.

No, you choose to live in a society where you have to give up some of your money to the government. If you choose to live in a society and gain the benefits of being part of it, you have entered an implicit agreement that you will follow the rules of that society.

What could a secular ethicist possibly offer anyone if morality is just a series of observations?

They could help people think things out and decide for themselves what should be considered moral and what should not. Just because we can't point to a universal, objective morality doesn't mean that we can't strive to create the best morality possible for ourselves.

Slavery was never right (never universally preferrable behaviour) even though most of the world believed it was, just like the world was never flat despite widespread belief that it was. People believe(d) many things out of ignorance just like we do today.

Slavery is not a universally preferable behavior eh? Well to begin with, neither is anything else as it is trivial to come up with a single social scenario, however fantastic, in which any one behavior is not preferable. But I'll bite and ask again, where is your universal, objective morality coming from and how do you personally know about it? How do you know whether a behavior is "universally preferable" if you can never know what conditions in the future, if not the past as well, will be like?

A moral axiom I would propose is commonly referred to as the non-aggression principle which states that the initiation of the use of force is wrong. What are you thoughts on this axiom?

Define in detail what you mean by "the use of force" and I'll be able to. Before you do though, answer me this: if someone decides to live in a society which requires that anyone living there agree that a policeman is allowed to lock them up if the society decides that they are a criminal, would a policeman's locking them up be an initiation of force?

In general, I disagree with the entire concept of moral axioms because I don't believe there is a universal, objective morality.

 

[arthwollipot]

What I am hearing from several posters is an axiom that sounds like: 'Morality is whatever the majority of the people say it is.' In other words the mob rules.

Morality by consensus is not in the same league as mob rule. For a start, our society's morals are derived from those of earlier societies, which competed with each other in a pseudo-Darwinian manner. Mob rule is ad-hoc.

For example, the society that held the purity of the Aryan race to be a high moral goal - to the point of attempting to exterminate an entire ethnic group en masse in gas chambers - no longer exists, and the Nazi moral complex has been outcompeted. Similarly, the society which held that it was acceptable for persons of a certain social standing to be able to kill those of a lower social standing, while expecting those persons to readily kill themselves if ordered to by someone of higher social standing, also no longer exists. It is my hope that the society which thinks that it is okay to bury an adulterous woman up to her neck and have other people gather to throw rocks at her head until she dies will also die out one day.

What we today consider good morals is the product of ongoing development by society. These days I think we're doing pretty well on the moral front, but I probably would have thought that if I were a samurai in feudal Japan too.

 

[Tim Moen]

You're avoiding making a strong statement by using the word "claiming". Do you believe in a universal, objective morality or not? If you do, where does it come from, and how would you go about identifying it?

Yes I believe in an objective morality (universally preferable behaviour). I don't know where it came from anymore than I know where the universe or laws of physics came from. I believe that morality extends from the nature of reality. For example eating is a universally preferable behaviour, the way that we interact with matter and energy can be universally preferable. The way we interact with others can be universally preferable.

I think one could identify morality through scientific study and rules of logic. Moral choices are optional, but, the effects are not. ie. I can choose whether I can behead someone, I can't choose whether that person can live without a head. We can measure the effects our choices have.

As you have noted, I would define morality as whatever the people around you say it is.

Yes. If a society decides that rape is okay, then anyone who commits a rape is not committing an amoral act within that society.

In places where slavery is accepted by most people yes, it is considered moral to own a slave.

In my society, we do not accept slavery, and thus, it is not moral to own a slave. In addition, I have been raised to believe, and have decided for myself, that slavery is not a good or fair thing, so even if I was dumped in the middle of a society in which slavery was acceptable, I still would not own a slave and would attempt to convince others not to take slaves as well.

What arguments would you use to convince others to abolish slavery? What do you mean by 'good' or 'fair'?

Your definition of morality is different than mine so we are not making headway there. However, I think we are closer to agreement than you might think. You wouldn't own a slave because you don't think its good or fair and you would try to convince others not to take slaves as well, all the while you would understand that your society accepts slavery... you would just feel that its unjust. I'm essentially saying the same thing. Our society (I hate using such vague terms) views ownership of labor by the ruling class (taxation) as acceptable. This is essentially a form of slavery, I do not think its good and I'm trying to convince others to withhold their consent to be ruled, or, to rule over others to whatever extent they can safely do so.

So I think we are in complete agreement over notions of goodness and fairness, or, what I call universally preferable behaviour.

No, you choose to live in a society where you have to give up some of your money to the government. If you choose to live in a society and gain the benefits of being part of it, you have entered an implicit agreement that you will follow the rules of that society.

I did not choose to be born where I was. I have not entered into any agreements. For a contract (agreement) to be valid it has to be entered into voluntarily, otherwise it is not an agreement it is coercion.

They could help people think things out and decide for themselves what should be considered moral and what should not. Just because we can't point to a universal, objective morality doesn't mean that we can't strive to create the best morality possible for ourselves.

What is the best morality? It sounds suspiciously like universally preferable behaviour. How do we advance morality? Could it be that we make discoveries in science, ethics, philosophy etc. that lead us closer to congruence with reality.

Slavery is not a universally preferable behavior eh? Well to begin with, neither is anything else as it is trivial to come up with a single social scenario, however fantastic, in which any one behavior is not preferable. But I'll bite and ask again, where is your universal, objective morality coming from and how do you personally know about it? How do you know whether a behavior is "universally preferable" if you can never know what conditions in the future, if not the past as well, will be like?

I don't personally know what universal morality is, anymore than I can articulate all the laws (known and unknown) of physics. Many have been discovered many are yet to be discovered. I believe the non-aggression principle is a universal axiom... if it's shown not to be then my subscription to anarchism will be illegitimate.

Define in detail what you mean by "the use of force" and I'll be able to. Before you do though, answer me this: if someone decides to live in a society which requires that anyone living there agree that a policeman is allowed to lock them up if the society decides that they are a criminal, would a policeman's locking them up be an initiation of force?

In general, I disagree with the entire concept of moral axioms because I don't believe there is a universal, objective morality.

The initiation of force means initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or the legitimately owned property of another person.

Your policeman scenario requires that someone agree to rules of dispute resolution that require incarceration if they break the agreed upon rules. I would imagine that a contract would be signed and breaking that contract would result in the initiation of force by a 'policeman'. I would personally not try and stop acts of consentual sado-masochism, because, I think I'd be infringing on the right of people living in an agreement to give and receive physical punishment. I don't think sado-masochism is universally preferable, but, may be asthetically preferable to some.

I would imagine that most people would hire a third party organization to act as arbitrators of disputes. I don't believe most people would want to pay for the incarceration of criminals that didn't play by the agreed upon rules. I think most criminals would probably either be offered the choice of working towards restoration of the victim, or, their way back into value to those around them, or, ostracization whereby no dispute resolution organization, individual, or business would want to have any dealings with them and they would be forced to the fringes of society, or, die trying to commit a crime against an individual who is defending themselves.

 

[phantomb]

Yes I believe in an objective morality (universally preferable behaviour).

Without complete knowledge of the future, how can any behavior ever be known to be universally preferable? And what do you even mean by "preferable"? It looks to me like you've just made up an idea, let's call it "universal preferability", and asked us to take for granted that you, yourself, are the only one able to judge what is or is not "universally preferable", regardless of the fact that you can't define it.

I don't know where it came from anymore than I know where the universe or laws of physics came from. I believe that morality extends from the nature of reality. For example eating is a universally preferable behaviour, the way that we interact with matter and energy can be universally preferable. The way we interact with others can be universally preferable.

Please describe, in detail, what makes something "universally preferable". Until you do that, I will continue to be skeptical of its objective existence, as it seems to me that it's all just arbitrary.

I think one could identify morality through scientific study and rules of logic. Moral choices are optional, but, the effects are not. ie. I can choose whether I can behead someone, I can't choose whether that person can live without a head. We can measure the effects our choices have.

Yes, but what criteria are we looking for? What are we comparing? What makes something "universally preferable"?

What arguments would you use to convince others to abolish slavery? What do you mean by 'good' or 'fair'?

Just like "moral", I think that "good" and "fair" are both subjective as well. I have been raised to believe, and have decided for myself, that some things are fair and good and some things are not. In addition, I think it can be shown that Humans are naturally social creatures, with some basic ideas about what actions are good and fair coming from that nature.

If the people in the society disagree with me on what is "good" and what is "fair", then I can present to them some of the concepts that I have used to conclude that slavery, among other things, is neither.

One such concept is the golden rule.

It may be simple, but the golden rule (treat others as you would be treated yourself) is to me, the obvious foundation for any society that I would want to live in. I would not take a slave or do any host of terrible things because I recognize that I could easily find myself in the position of the person that I would be making a slave or whatever. Using my empathy, I can evaluate whether the benefits I would gain from committing such an act are worth the risk of potentially ending up at the receiving end of the act myself.

This idea is obviously not universally applicable (if I were a criminal, for example, I obviously wouldn't want to be punished), but you should get the general idea.

Your definition of morality is different than mine so we are not making headway there. However, I think we are closer to agreement than you might think. You wouldn't own a slave because you don't think its good or fair and you would try to convince others not to take slaves as well, all the while you would understand that your society accepts slavery... you would just feel that its unjust. I'm essentially saying the same thing. Our society (I hate using such vague terms) views ownership of labor by the ruling class (taxation) as acceptable.

As I've said before and will discuss further below, the agreement that you will be taxed is implicit when you decide to live in and benefit from a society.

This is essentially a form of slavery, I do not think its good and I'm trying to convince others to withhold their consent to be ruled, or, to rule over others to whatever extent they can safely do so.

You are not forced to live in your society, you can leave if you want to. It is stupid to expect that everyone else will simply let you mooch off of their work by reaping the benefits of living in a society without paying the taxes that keep it running, or without following its rules. While I'm sure many people have simply never given any of this any thought, I think that most people who have thought about it agree with the rules that their society has, or at least that societies in general need such rules to function safely.

So I think we are in complete agreement over notions of goodness and fairness, or, what I call universally preferable behaviour.

Yeah, I'm sure that we probably do agree about what is good and what is fair on an individual basis. What I don't agree with is your notion that such things can be determined objectively and your notion that an action can be known to be "universally preferable".

I did not choose to be born where I was. I have not entered into any agreements. For a contract (agreement) to be valid it has to be entered into voluntarily, otherwise it is not an agreement it is coercion.

Be pragmatic. In an ideal world everyone would be born fully grown and intelligent with all the knowledge required to decide where they want to live, but unfortunately, we do not live in that world. In our world, people are born as babies and we have to make all kinds of compromises because of this. As I said above and have said before, if you don't like the rules of your society, you try to change them or you leave. If you want to be a part of a society be prepared to deal with its rules. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

What is the best morality? It sounds suspiciously like universally preferable behaviour. How do we advance morality? Could it be that we make discoveries in science, ethics, philosophy etc. that lead us closer to congruence with reality.

Arguably, we never do advance morality, or at least we don't do it as you are saying we do. There's a reason why historically, what is moral has generally been changed only when it became necessary or easy to do so.

If you want me to believe that reality has anything to say about morality, stop holding back the definition of "universally preferable behavior".

I don't personally know what universal morality is, anymore than I can articulate all the laws (known and unknown) of physics. Many have been discovered many are yet to be discovered. I believe the non-aggression principle is a universal axiom... if it's shown not to be then my subscription to anarchism will be illegitimate.

Can you define "universal morality" or can't you? If you can't, then why do you believe that it exists? How can something ever be shown not to be an axiom of "universal morality" if you can't even explain why it should be an axiom in the first place?

The initiation of force means initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or the legitimately owned property of another person.

Your policeman scenario requires that someone agree to rules of dispute resolution that require incarceration if they break the agreed upon rules. I would imagine that a contract would be signed and breaking that contract would result in the initiation of force by a 'policeman'. I would personally not try and stop acts of consentual sado-masochism, because, I think I'd be infringing on the right of people living in an agreement to give and receive physical punishment. I don't think sado-masochism is universally preferable, but, may be asthetically preferable to some.

I would imagine that most people would hire a third party organization to act as arbitrators of disputes. I don't believe most people would want to pay for the incarceration of criminals that didn't play by the agreed upon rules. I think most criminals would probably either be offered the choice of working towards restoration of the victim, or, their way back into value to those around them, or, ostracization whereby no dispute resolution organization, individual, or business would want to have any dealings with them and they would be forced to the fringes of society, or, die trying to commit a crime against an individual who is defending themselves.

I honestly don't know what to say to someone who believes that in an ideal society, if nobody is willing or able to pay to have a criminal prosecuted, that criminal should be allowed to go scott-free.

What if a murderer kills a person who is a loner that nobody likes? Who's going to foot the bill in that case? The people who see it happen and think that the murderer shouldn't be allowed to get away with it?

What if the murderer is rich and has paid for his own personal army to defend him? He can also afford to bribe both the "arbitrators" who, after all, are businessmen, and anyone who would be willing to pay these arbitration organizations to try and charge him.

ostracization whereby no dispute resolution organization, individual, or business would want to have any dealings with them and they would be forced to the fringes of society, or, die trying to commit a crime against an individual who is defending themselves.

Yeah, that's right, because no corporate tycoons today would ever think of taking the money of some person or entity that had engaged in illegal, antisocial behavior.

 

[Tim Moen]

Without complete knowledge of the future, how can any behavior ever be known to be universally preferable? And what do you even mean by "preferable"? It looks to me like you've just made up an idea, let's call it "universal preferability", and asked us to take for granted that you, yourself, are the only one able to judge what is or is not "universally preferable", regardless of the fact that you can't define it.

Please describe, in detail, what makes something "universally preferable". Until you do that, I will continue to be skeptical of its objective existence, as it seems to me that it's all just arbitrary.

Universally preferable behaviour is an action that a person takes. Eating would be universally preferable to not-eating, if your goal is survival. To be considered universally preferable a proposed ethical theory must be either falsifiable, or, meet the rules of logic.

The act of debating presupposes that determining truth is universally preferable to believing falsehoods. If you did not believe truth to be universally preferable you would not debate. You can falsify the theory that believing in truth (congruence with reality) is preferable to believing in falsehood.

I don't know for sure if the non-aggression principle is universally preferable behaviour. I don't think that I need to prove that it is because my practice of it doesn't impose on anybody's freedom. I only need to prove its validity to the extent I would like to convince other people to practice it in their own lives. If I assert that I should have the right to initiate force against you and take your property then I believe the onus would be on me to show why this is the case. This would be analogous to the claim by atheists that the onus isn't on them to disprove god but on the one making the extraordinary claim to prove the existence of god. I don't think I'm the one making the extraordinary claim. The statist makes the claim that certain people have the right initiate force, this seems like an extraordinary claim and requires proof because the initiation of force has been proven to be harmful to health. I have no claim to truth, in the same way an atheist can't completely explain the existence of the natural world. An atheist can determine that no proof exists for god and that the big bang seems more plausible based on the evidence. An anarchist says that there is no proof that one human being has more rights than another and the NAP seems a lot more plausible based on the evidence, but, I'll admit it is not a completely fleshed out theory.

Just like "moral", I think that "good" and "fair" are both subjective as well. I have been raised to believe, and have decided for myself, that some things are fair and good and some things are not. In addition, I think it can be shown that Humans are naturally social creatures, with some basic ideas about what actions are good and fair coming from that nature.

If the people in the society disagree with me on what is "good" and what is "fair", then I can present to them some of the concepts that I have used to conclude that slavery, among other things, is neither.

One such concept is the golden rule.

It may be simple, but the golden rule (treat others as you would be treated yourself) is to me, the obvious foundation for any society that I would want to live in. I would not take a slave or do any host of terrible things because I recognize that I could easily find myself in the position of the person that I would be making a slave or whatever. Using my empathy, I can evaluate whether the benefits I would gain from committing such an act are worth the risk of potentially ending up at the receiving end of the act myself.

This idea is obviously not universally applicable (if I were a criminal, for example, I obviously wouldn't want to be punished), but you should get the general idea.

The golden rule is essentially the non-aggression principle (NAP), and I agree that I would prefer to live in a society where all people practiced this principle. Many NAP proponents feel that punishing a criminal is not the initiation of force, but, simply a continuation of self defense. To use the golden rule analogy they would want others to punish them if they commit a crime and so therefore punish others when they commit crimes... they treat people the way they would like to be treated.

I don't personally buy this. I think self-defense is only justifiable up to the exact amount of force required to protect person or property. Retaliation after the fact violates the NAP and is in no way anything but stone age justice in that it does not restore (or even attempt to restore) the victim, it further costs the victim and others money (prosecution and incarceration), and it does not rehabilitate or find any value in the criminal. All that being said I wouldn't stop consenting adults from agreeing to terms that involved this type of sado-masochism.

As I've said before and will discuss further below, the agreement that you will be taxed is implicit when you decide to live in and benefit from a society.

You are not forced to live in your society, you can leave if you want to. It is stupid to expect that everyone else will simply let you mooch off of their work by reaping the benefits of living in a society without paying the taxes that keep it running, or without following its rules. While I'm sure many people have simply never given any of this any thought, I think that most people who have thought about it agree with the rules that their society has, or at least that societies in general need such rules to function safely.

Would you consider a man who has a choice to give a mugger his money or his life to have freedom? This is no different than saying if you don't like it leave.

You are right that taxation creates mooching. The nonproductive and the corrupt mooch off the productive thus destroying the wealth of the society in general.

I'm not advocating for no rules, I'm advocating for the voluntary agreement to rules.

Be pragmatic. In an ideal world everyone would be born fully grown and intelligent with all the knowledge required to decide where they want to live, but unfortunately, we do not live in that world. In our world, people are born as babies and we have to make all kinds of compromises because of this. As I said above and have said before, if you don't like the rules of your society, you try to change them or you leave. If you want to be a part of a society be prepared to deal with its rules. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Well I'm certainly glad I wasn't born into a communist state. I like where I live and I am generally happy. I think I'll work to make it better for my kids. I have no delusions... this is a multigenerational project (like the eradication of fundamentalist religion) that involves a fundamental change in our personal relationships, especially our relationship with children who learn all about coercive relationships from the way we parent (do it because I said so/no back talk/you will respect me because/do it or you will be spanked etc).

Arguably, we never do advance morality, or at least we don't do it as you are saying we do. There's a reason why historically, what is moral has generally been changed only when it became necessary or easy to do so.

This is a difference in definition again. I agree that the collective opinion regarding what is universally preferable behaviour changes with time. Collective opinion may or may not be in congruence with reality.

I honestly don't know what to say to someone who believes that in an ideal society,

Utopia is a statist idea. I don't think that there is such a thing, I would leave that type of thinking to guys like Mao, Stalin, Hitler and of course the Democratic Republic of the US which is busy trying to enforce its ethics around the globe.

if nobody is willing or able to pay to have a criminal prosecuted, that criminal should be allowed to go scott-free.

I'm sure that most individuals who know a murder was committed would pay for investigator to establish who committed the crime. I certainly would if a murder was committed in my vicinity. If the murder was committed by a distraught father against a man that raped his child I would probably not be to concerned about paying for the prosecution or incarceration.

What if the murderer is rich and has paid for his own personal army to defend him? He can also afford to bribe both the "arbitrators" who, after all, are businessmen, and anyone who would be willing to pay these arbitration organizations to try and charge him.

Sounds like you are describing the state.

Of course in a free society where you would be free to essentially chose your own 'governments' or dispute resolution organizations, those organizations that were clearly in the pocket of big business would not get much support/business from other individuals or organizations and wouldn't last very long. If there was one particular individual or organization that started amassing an army it would certainly raise eyebrows and cause people to collectively pay for the services of an organization that could protect them.

I would be surprised to see this happen in a free society because presumably a society would be free because most people will have reached an understanding that voluntarism is universally preferable to coercion. I don't think any war is going to set us free, it will just be a natural progression and discovery of personal ethics.

I would think that acting in ways that are virtuous would become extremely important in a free society. If you start acting in unscrupulous ways who would protect you from ostrasization. Corruption occurs when you have one party which holds all the guns and can therefore get away with anything they want with relative impunity.

Yeah, that's right, because no corporate tycoons today would ever think of taking the money of some person or entity that had engaged in illegal, antisocial behavior.

Again, virtuous behaviour would be much more essential in a voluntary society. Corporations are groups of men that are protected by government. It is a limited liability company by definition, it makes the men who run it less accountable. Corporations would not exist without a state monopolizing force to protect it.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm not proposing anything. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to run your life. Thats my point. I don't believe I need someone else running my life, and I certainly don't need to elect someone to run yours. I wouldn't want you under any form of authority that you don't voluntarily submit to.

The problem comes when how I want to run my life comes into conflict with how you want to run your life. I may be a nudist who thinks that the land belongs to everyone, and therefore it's perfectly ok to dance naked on your front lawn. You may be a territorial priss who objects strenuously to such behavior. Who is right?

In fact, who says it's your lawn? Suppose I claimed it was mine, since you never use it and I dance on it every day? How do you arbitrate that little dispute?

Governments aren't the only things to create and enforce rules. When you come to my property, there is a set of rules that must be followed to allow you to continue to be there. Currently, if you break my rules, I call up an enforcement agency to have you removed. Typically that is a government police force, but it need not be so.

What if the enforcement agency you call doesn't agree that your rules are worth enforcing?

You're probably looking for something more specific, though, so here's how I could see it happening:

He would need to replace it and then compensate me for the time and trouble. If he doesn't have any property worth taking, then he would need to work to pay it off. But what would probably happen is that I would have insurance which would pay me out and then they would deal with getting compensated. If I caught him then he would need to compensate me for the trouble. The compensation would need to be high enough to act as a deterrent.

What do you do if he refuses to work or compensate? It certainly isn't to his advantage to do so. Same for your insurance company. Suppose your insurance company says, "Your rates have just tripled. Pay up or we don't." What then?

About the same that I would if the government started to infringe on my rights. I would seek redress through courts or other organisations.

Courts? Other organizations? Who creates these? Who gives them the power to decide what is just? By what criteria do they decide? Whose rules?

This guy, I think, said it best:

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

 

[shadron]

Allow me to bring up one additional consideration. While an anarchist is out there, defending his property and family (as no one else is doing it for him) then that person, which in reality is all persons (even kids fight the sometimes necessarily heavy hand of parentage) is not painting, is not plumbing, is not making lumber out of trees, is not selling cars, is not fishing with his grandkids. Perhaps freedom is a wonderful thing, but all other considerations aside, is loosing civilization and culture worth the freedom (or the freedom that we do give up in order to institute government)? Because that is what you are requiring. Hunting/gathering is the only human culture which can support such anarchy, and only then because bands of HGs are so few and far between. So, concommitant with your society we need to get rid of, oh, perhaps 99% of human life, as well as civilization. I have little doubt about which side of that percentage you see yourself occupying.

 

[Lonewulf]

Don't need to do anything. There has never been a monopoly in a free market that hurt consumers. All examples of "monopolies" that have been broken up were broken up because they hurt competitors. Monopolies that hurt consumers don't exist without a government keeping them alive.

This sounds so hard to believe, I choked on it. I don't believe a word of this.

If a company is a monopoly, with a total lack of competition, then it would be able to decide the prices of anything it sells. It would have total control, and be perfectly able to screw the consumer of the thing it owned was something the consumer needed to keep the lifestyle they desire (or necessary even to survive).

I have no reason to accept your premise as true.

 

[drkitten]

This sounds so hard to believe, I choked on it. I don't believe a word of this.

If a company is a monopoly, with a total lack of competition, then it would be able to decide the prices of anything it sells. It would have total control, and be perfectly able to screw the consumer of the thing it owned was something the consumer needed to keep the lifestyle they desire (or necessary even to survive).

I have no reason to accept your premise as true.

Actually, if you follow twisted-enough anarchist logic, it comes out as true, simply because there has never been a "free market" --- and therefore, there has never been a monopoly broken up under a free market (which raises the question of who would do the breaking up, of course).

More generally, monopolies can generally only exist in a society that respects and enforces property rights. If we're living on an isolated island and I own the only desalination plant (I believe this situation has actually held on various military bases in the Pacific), then I have a monopoly on fresh water and can sell it to you under any conditions I demand; your choices are to pay or die.

But that's a false dilemma; your choices are actually to pay, to die, or to take it from me by force main. The third choice is not typically an option under rule of law, because the government will step in to defend "my" plant, implicitly meaning that the government is defending me and "keeping me alive."

But while true in detail, adam's claim is still false in large, because there are numerous historical advantages of monopolists acting with complete disrespect for their customer and client base, knowing that they have enough weath and power to withstand any challenges thrown at them -- the wealth and power can come in the form of public largess from the government or private muscle like the Pinkerton thugs-for-hire. Look at any company town or Mafia-controlled section of New York, where private thugs will drop by and trash anyone who opens a business in competition with the monopoly --- if you need examples, I suggest Wiseguy and Donnie Brasco as very good first-person accounts.

And I suggest that adam reads them as well if he'd like to see how people behave in the absence of government authority.



But

 

[phantomb]

Yes I believe in an objective morality (universally preferable behaviour).

Universally preferable behaviour is an action that a person takes. Eating would be universally preferable to not-eating, if your goal is survival.

Let me apply the same logic you've just used:

Objective morality exists, and we call it universally preferable behavior.

Poisoning your neighbors would be universally preferable to not poisoning your neighbors, if your goal is to kill your neighbors.

Therefore, poisoning your neighbors is moral.

This is obviously nonsensical.
The definition you have given here is not complete, because you haven't explained what the "goal" should be. You have dodged my question. Please actually describe where your knowledge of objective morality is coming from, and if possible, cite some specific examples of "goals" that are objectively moral and amoral.

Also, I've asked you about three times now to explain how you can tell whether an action is "universally preferable" without universal, situational knowledge of the future, or for that matter, universal, situational knowledge of the present and universal, situational knowledge of the past. In other words, how can you know that there was never, is not, and never will be, a situation in which an action that is usually preferable when trying to meet a certain goal changes to no longer be preferable when trying to meet that goal?

To be considered universally preferable a proposed ethical theory must be either falsifiable, or, meet the rules of logic.

This is just nonsense. Why would an ethical theory have to be falsifiable. If there exists a universal, objective morality then the ethical idea is either moral or it isn't.

The act of debating presupposes that determining truth is universally preferable to believing falsehoods. If you did not believe truth to be universally preferable you would not debate.

No. I am an emotional, irrational creature, and I engage in debates for many reasons, one of which being the fact that I personally think that determining truth is a good idea. I do not have to make any statement about the universal preferablity of anything.

You can falsify the theory that believing in truth (congruence with reality) is preferable to believing in falsehood.

No I can't, because I don't believe in a universal, objective morality.

I don't know for sure if the non-aggression principle is universally preferable behaviour.

But you do know that some things are, right?

I don't think that I need to prove that it is because my practice of it doesn't impose on anybody's freedom.

True. If you don't get in anyone's way, I'm sure nobody will care about what ethical principals you put into practice. Being able to prove it might help if you ever want to convince people that you are right though.

I only need to prove its validity to the extent I would like to convince other people to practice it in their own lives. If I assert that I should have the right to initiate force against you and take your property then I believe the onus would be on me to show why this is the case.

And yet, you act as though all the rights that you think are good are objectively true. One of the foundations of your axiom, for example, is that people can own property. Why is there no onus on you to prove that one?

This would be analogous to the claim by atheists that the onus isn't on them to disprove god but on the one making the extraordinary claim to prove the existence of god. I don't think I'm the one making the extraordinary claim.

You claim that people have the right to not have violence done against them. You claim that people have the right to own property.

The statist makes the claim that certain people have the right initiate force, this seems like an extraordinary claim and requires proof because the initiation of force has been proven to be harmful to health.

So anything that is harmful to health is considered amoral by default? Why?
What happened to you appeal to the universal, objective morality?

I have no claim to truth, in the same way an atheist can't completely explain the existence of the natural world.

What about your strong claim that there exists a universal, objective morality?

An atheist can determine that no proof exists for god and that the big bang seems more plausible based on the evidence. An anarchist says that there is no proof that one human being has more rights than another and the NAP seems a lot more plausible based on the evidence, but, I'll admit it is not a completely fleshed out theory.

Sounds about right.

The golden rule is essentially the non-aggression principle (NAP), and I agree that I would prefer to live in a society where all people practiced this principle. Many NAP proponents feel that punishing a criminal is not the initiation of force, but, simply a continuation of self defense.

This is part of my criticism of your NAP. You seem to claim the ability to define aggression as whatever you want. This runs into problems not only because the term aggression becomes naturally ambiguous, but also because the next person over may not agree with you on what constitutes "aggression" or "defense".

To use the golden rule analogy they would want others to punish them if they commit a crime and so therefore punish others when they commit crimes... they treat people the way they would like to be treated.

Maybe, but I don't think many people who commit crimes really think that they deserve to be punished.

I don't personally buy this. I think self-defense is only justifiable up to the exact amount of force required to protect person or property. Retaliation after the fact violates the NAP and is in no way anything but stone age justice in that it does not restore (or even attempt to restore) the victim, it further costs the victim and others money (prosecution and incarceration), and it does not rehabilitate or find any value in the criminal. All that being said I wouldn't stop consenting adults from agreeing to terms that involved this type of sado-masochism.

I personally believe that draconian laws are the ideal ones to have because of their usefulness as a deterrent, but I'm not prepared to claim that I am universally or objectively right.

Would you consider a man who has a choice to give a mugger his money or his life to have freedom? This is no different than saying if you don't like it leave.

Didn't I use those exact words? The difference is that the mugger isn't saying "give me your money", he's saying "if you want to stay here in my dark alley, I'm going to take your money". If you don't like it, try convincing the millions of people who have taken the deal and are now collaborating with the mugger (it is a very large alley), that it is a bad one, but you can always choose to leave if that fails.

You are right that taxation creates mooching. The nonproductive and the corrupt mooch off the productive thus destroying the wealth of the society in general.

The people who make up a society get to decide the rules of that society. Even if you don't agree with this in principle, it is a fact.

I'm not advocating for no rules, I'm advocating for the voluntary agreement to rules.

Yes, and the majority has agreed that if you want to live in the society, you have to follow certain rules. Most people agree that this is the best way to run a society. I can think of no society in the history of the world that has even approached the same level of productivity, freedom, and safety, while using the system of anarchy that you are suggesting. There is a reason for this.

Well I'm certainly glad I wasn't born into a communist state. I like where I live and I am generally happy. I think I'll work to make it better for my kids. I have no delusions... this is a multigenerational project (like the eradication of fundamentalist religion) that involves a fundamental change in our personal relationships, especially our relationship with children who learn all about coercive relationships from the way we parent (do it because I said so/no back talk/you will respect me because/do it or you will be spanked etc).

Yeah, tell it brother! Parents are intentionally brainwashing their kids to accept coercive relationships.

"do it because I said so"/"do it or you will be spanked"

What are parents thinking? Don't they realize that kids are just as intelligent and knowledgeable as they are? Why do parents persist in believing the myth that kids are morons who would probably get themselves killed if there wasn't an intelligent and knowledgeable authority figure around to keep them in line?

"no back talk"/"you will respect me because"

Why do people teach this garbage to their kids? Respect for others, who needs that? I would much prefer a society full of self serving ******** who don't respect the people and organizations that hold it together.

This is a difference in definition again. I agree that the collective opinion regarding what is universally preferable behaviour changes with time. Collective opinion may or may not be in congruence with reality.

Don't dance around this issue. You claimed that morality is objective and that we are constantly advancing our understanding of it. I claimed that the primary reason why our views on morality change over time is that it becomes necessary or easy to change them.

For example, the abolition of slavery coincided nicely with the long term reduction in the need or desire for slaves brought about by the industrial revolution. Right now it is still considered moral to eat animals by most people, but I can easily see some future Human society reading with disgust about how us barbarians in the early 21st century used to kill animals and eat them or use them for clothes or whatever. That society will probably also have the ability to create artificial meat or some other related conveniences that we don't have.

Utopia is a statist idea. I don't think that there is such a thing, I would leave that type of thinking to guys like Mao, Stalin, Hitler and of course the Democratic Republic of the US which is busy trying to enforce its ethics around the globe.

I didn't say utopia, I said ideal society. Isn't that what you think your anarchist society is? Ideal for us right now?

I'm sure that most individuals who know a murder was committed would pay for investigator to establish who committed the crime.

Absolutely not, especially if there were tangible benefits (bribes) offered to keep them quiet.

I certainly would if a murder was committed in my vicinity. If the murder was committed by a distraught father against a man that raped his child I would probably not be to concerned about paying for the prosecution or incarceration.

Yes that's right, if you think a murder is justified then you shouldn't bother paying for an investigation. It doesn't matter if you're an educated lawyer or a 19 year old burger flipper, you should get to decide whether someone is guilty or not.

Come on. What you're describing is a system where you can buy justice. You think the people who run this "arbitration organization" are ever going to hand down a sentence that the guy who's paying their bills doesn't like? I don't think so? Essentially, any rich person could pay a ton of money to one of these organizations to basically have them take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner against whenever they want against whoever they want.

Your society would fall apart in days to weeks as rich people and corporations use their absolute power to take over.

Sounds like you are describing the state.

Of course in a free society where you would be free to essentially chose your own 'governments' or dispute resolution organizations, those organizations that were clearly in the pocket of big business would not get much support/business from other individuals or organizations and wouldn't last very long.

Most powerful people don't care about whether their dealings are with respectable partners or not, they care about lining their own pockets. The people just plain don't care.

Corporations break the law all the time and people still buy from them because it's easy. Look at Walmart as just the smallest example of this. Walmart has been charged with labor law violations countless times and around the world they rack up several environmental code infractions every year. In my country they were charged with breaking the law by shutting down stores that attempted to unionize. Nobody gives a ****.

If there was one particular individual or organization that started amassing an army it would certainly raise eyebrows and cause people to collectively pay for the services of an organization that could protect them.

Yes, because it's the little people who have the wealth, not a few big players. Seriously though, the low income and middle class people in most countries could never hope to outbid the corporate entities and the super rich for anything. Not to mention the fact that there is a limited number of mercenaries that can be active at any one time. We already have a perfectly fine system for dealing with all of these issues, and it's the one we're using right now.

I would be surprised to see this happen in a free society because presumably a society would be free because most people will have reached an understanding that voluntarism is universally preferable to coercion. I don't think any war is going to set us free, it will just be a natural progression and discovery of personal ethics.

Yes, if we forget everything we know about how people act and how to run a society and assume that everyone "presumably" will have worked it out by then, your anarchist society could work.

I would think that acting in ways that are virtuous would become extremely important in a free society.

Yeah, that would be pretty important wouldn't it. Too bad it wouldn't happen.

If you start acting in unscrupulous ways who would protect you from ostrasization. Corruption occurs when you have one party which holds all the guns and can therefore get away with anything they want with relative impunity.

Who would protect you from being ostracized? How about your hordes of cash? Your society would be nothing more that complete freedom for the super rich.

Again, virtuous behaviour would be much more essential in a voluntary society. Corporations are groups of men that are protected by government. It is a limited liability company by definition, it makes the men who run it less accountable. Corporations would not exist without a state monopolizing force to protect it.

********. Corporations would make it through just fine, except now there aren't any regulations (you know, those things we came up with because if we didn't the corporations would destroy the environment, break the law, and kill people with lax safety standards and zero accountability) and they have much more power to interfere with others and engage in antisocial behavior.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

Free market anarchy is rule of the wealthy over the poor. There is nothing stopping the wealthy from trampling the "rights" of the impoverished.

"I'll pay someone else to protect my 'rights'." With what money? You can't outspend the the rich. Oh, ands what happens if someone steals any money you have, and then uses it hire people to oppress you?

Regarding rights: they don't exist without government. One of the main purposes of government is granting rights to its citizens. It then ensures the respect of these rights by authorizing the use of force in their defense.

Also: Utilitarianism was here, Absolutism is a loser.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let me apply the same logic you've just used:

Objective morality exists, and we call it universally preferable behavior.

Poisoning your neighbors would be universally preferable to not poisoning your neighbors, if your goal is to kill your neighbors.

Therefore, poisoning your neighbors is moral.

This is obviously nonsensical.

Dang, someone got there first. This is what I was about to say. When you introduce goals, then objective morality is completely out the window. Goals-based morality is entirely dependent on what the goals are. If the goal is to live in a peaceful and happy society, then that's fine. But what if the goal is to maintain the purity of the Aryan race?

Oh crap. I just Godwinned the thread. Sorry about that.

 

[paximperium]

Dang, someone got there first. This is what I was about to say. When you introduce goals, then objective morality is completely out the window. Goals-based morality is entirely dependent on what the goals are. If the goal is to live in a peaceful and happy society, then that's fine. But what if the goal is to maintain the purity of the Aryan race?

Oh crap. I just Godwinned the thread. Sorry about that.

In such a morality, the ends justify the means.
You want a happy population? How about indoctrination and drugs?

You want a population that works together? You make sure those who refuse to work with others are dealt with.

You want to make sure all believe in the one true government? Race? Religion?

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

In such a morality, the ends justify the means.
You want a happy population? How about indoctrination and drugs?

Happiness is mandatory, citizen.

 

[arthwollipot]

Happiness is mandatory, citizen.

Yes, Friend Computer!

 

[adamruth]

This is obviously a point of much contention then. I think that the rights a person has are the ones that the people in the society around them say that they have. You think that the rights a person has are the ones that you personally say that people have.

It seems obvious to me that pragmatically and philosophically, my answer is the correct one, if not the ideal one. Under the circumstances I described in my last post, for example, someone with your beliefs could complain about the guy who walked into his home without permission, but would be ignored by everyone else, and if the complainer tried to defend his property, the society would lock the complainer up, not the guy who took his stuff.

As I said, the only real moral argument for government is "Might makes right."

 

[adamruth]

I very much prefer living in a society where children are educated, laws are passed and enforced, and fires are put out by highly trained specialists who will put any fire in their jurisdiction.

Thank you for sharing your false dichotomy.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thank you for sharing your false dichotomy.

Do you have evidence that these things will still happen in the absence of government?

 

[adamruth]

This sounds so hard to believe, I choked on it. I don't believe a word of this.

If a company is a monopoly, with a total lack of competition, then it would be able to decide the prices of anything it sells. It would have total control, and be perfectly able to screw the consumer of the thing it owned was something the consumer needed to keep the lifestyle they desire (or necessary even to survive).

I have no reason to accept your premise as true.

Then provide an example. Every single anti-trust case in the US was about hurting competition, typically through lowing prices (not a bad thing for us consumers).

Please, share with us a single example of a company that gained a monopoly without a government license (like most utilities and cable companies) that screwed their customers.

There aren't any.