Merged Harm, force, and might makes right

[Piscivore]

Then what were African Americans complaining about so long in the US. Yes, they're life was terrible because the government treated them poorly. But they could have left....

No, people treated them poorly. You seem to have this persistent delusion that a "government" is something that exists on its own, apart from the "people" it allegedly oppresses. Governements are just people.

And some slaves did leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia#Settlers_from_the_United_States

I answered your "force" question earlier. Are you ignoring me?

 

[Patrick_R]

No, people treated them poorly. You seem to have this persistent delusion that a "government" is something that exists on its own, apart from the "people" it allegedly oppresses. Governements are just people.

And some slaves did leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia#Settlers_from_the_United_States

I answered your "force" question earlier. Are you ignoring me?

Oh people treated other people poorly...my bad, and here all this time I thought segregation and slavery were ingrained in US law...oh wait it was.

US law = governmnet law.

So yeah, people in the US, with the help, backing, support and violence of the US government screwed over black people.

 

[Cleon]

Oh people treated other people poorly...my bad, and here all this time I thought segregation and slavery were ingrained in US law...oh wait it was.

US law = governmnet law.

So yeah, people in the US, with the help, backing, support and violence of the US government screwed over black people.

Apparently you are unaware that it was state laws that instituted slavery, not US federal law. We fought a little war over that, perhaps you've forgotten.

Similarly, Jim Crow--segregation--was also at the state level, not federal.

 

[Piscivore]

Oh people treated other people poorly...my bad, and here all this time I thought segregation and slavery were ingrained in US law...oh wait it was.

Ingrained in U.S. state law by the people who make the laws, not by some external, nebulous, hostile entity.

US law = governmnet law.

...and government = people. People make laws. They don't come ex cathedra from some mysterious shadowy entity.

So yeah, people in the US, with the help, backing, support and violence of the US government screwed over black people.

People in the US, with the help, backing, support and violence of the people that consituted the state governments screwed over black people.
"The government" is not separate from "the people".

 

[Patrick_R]

So to you 50+1% constitutes the people?

 

[Patrick_R]

What about 435 out of 305 million? Is that the people?

 

[Patrick_R]

Did the US invade Iraq because it was the will of the people?

 

[Piscivore]

So to you 50+1% constitutes the people? What about 435 out of 305 million? Is that the people?

Everybody constitutes the people. It's just that some people are better at getting their way than others. That's true in any society, government, or organisation imaginable. "Majority rules", "might makes right" and other such notions do not always apply. What matters is what one knows how to get done, what one can do one's self, what one can get others to do, what one can get others to accept or ignore, and who is working against what one wants and the skills, connections, and knowledge they have.

Did the US invade Iraq because it was the will of the people?

Yes- the will of the people that wanted the war. They had the ability, knowledge, and power to make it happen that outweighed the ability, knowledge, or power of the ones that willed otherwise.

 

[Tricky]

Did the US invade Iraq because it was the will of the people?

The invasion was sanctioned by the elected representatives of the people. It was not my will, but all the representatives from my part of the country voted in favor of it. Many representatives later regretted that decision and worked, through legal channels, to try to stop the invasion.

I didn't like it, but the government, whose rules, by continuing to hold my citizenship, I have tacitly agreed to live by, approved it. I can and have protested against it. I can and have written letters to my elected representatives. As a result of my actions and the actions of many people like myself, that invasion is now ending. I could have, but didn't violently attack my nation's institutions, employees and elected representatives. That would, and should, cause me to forfeit my freedom.

 

[Patrick_R]

Apparently you are unaware that it was state laws that instituted slavery, not US federal law. We fought a little war over that, perhaps you've forgotten.

Similarly, Jim Crow--segregation--was also at the state level, not federal.

You are correct, I'll ammend my statement. State governments...yadda, yadda, yadda.

My point still stands. Government, government, government.

 

[Patrick_R]

Everybody constitutes the people. It's just that some people are better at getting their way than others. That's true in any society, government, or organisation imaginable. "Majority rules", "might makes right" and other such notions do not always apply. What matters is what one knows how to get done, what one can do one's self, what one can get others to do, what one can get others to accept or ignore, and who is working against what one wants and the skills, connections, and knowledge they have.

and in a country where the government interferes too much in the economy those who know how to manipulate the government the most are going to take from the others and reward themselves. I'm worried less about the government provision for the poor than for government provision for the rich. Unfortunately, that is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into the free market.

 

[Patrick_R]

The invasion was sanctioned by the elected representatives of the people. It was not my will, but all the representatives from my part of the country voted in favor of it. Many representatives later regretted that decision and worked, through legal channels, to try to stop the invasion.

I didn't like it, but the government, whose rules, by continuing to hold my citizenship, I have tacitly agreed to live by, approved it. I can and have protested against it. I can and have written letters to my elected representatives. As a result of my actions and the actions of many people like myself, that invasion is now ending. I could have, but didn't violently attack my nation's institutions, employees and elected representatives. That would, and should, cause me to forfeit my freedom.

I am not advocating a rebellion for goodness sake. I'm suggesting that government action has overstepped its proper bounds and commits unjust violence against its people. I'm suggesting that the will of the majority is not sufficient to protect the people from injustices and importantly that the majority does not make right.

 

[Piscivore]

and in a country where the government interferes too much in the economy those who know how to manipulate the government the most are going to take from the others and reward themselves.

And in a country where the government interferes too little in the economy those who know how to manipulate the economy the most are going to take from the others and reward themselves. I meant it when I said "any system".

People are people.

I'm worried less about the government provision for the poor than for government provision for the rich.

Check out the "robber barons" of the Nineteenth Century for a perspective on life with insufficent regulation.

Unfortunately, that is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into the free market.

One that does not warrant throwing out perfectly good babies with the dirty bathwater.

 

[Piscivore]

I am not advocating a rebellion for goodness sake. I'm suggesting that government action has overstepped its proper bounds and commits unjust violence against its people.

"Governments" are not monlithic entities. They are not even actual entities, it is just a word to describe a group of people, sometimes acting in concert, sometimes not.

"Government action" is a myth. People act.

People create the "bounds", and people decide when they are "proper" bounds or not- either by direct action or passive acceptance.

What is "just" is subjective.

I'm suggesting that the will of the majority is not sufficient to protect the people from injustices and importantly that the majority does not make right.

People decide for themselves what is an injustice or not, and it sometimes will not agree with your conception.

That "the will of the majority is not sufficient" is intentional, and is one of the good things about the social sytems we have now in the U.S. As you say, "the majority does not make right."

 

[Patrick_R]

"Governments" are not monlithic entities. They are not even actual entities, it is just a word to describe a group of people, sometimes acting in concert, sometimes not.

"Government action" is a myth. People act.

I don't care what you change your definitions to, the point remains. Under this understanding we have an elite group of minorities empowered with a monopoly of violence to decide the fate and livelihood of all others. On occassion, these people behave as tyrants, overstepping their bounds harming others.

People create the "bounds", and people decide when they are "proper" bounds or not- either by direct action or passive acceptance.

By people do you mean 100% of the population or the people granted the monopoly of violence?

What is "just" is subjective.

No it is not.

People decide for themselves what is an injustice or not, and it sometimes will not agree with your conception.

Human intellect and reason can determine what is just and unjust but that does not make it subjective - that is reletivistic from society to society.

That "the will of the majority is not sufficient" is intentional, and is one of the good things about the social sytems we have now in the U.S. As you say, "the majority does not make right."

Which is why the US set up federal checks and balances and a two tiered federal system, but those protections are erroding fast.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't care what you change your definitions to, the point remains. Under this understanding we have an elite group of minorities empowered with a monopoly of violence to decide the fate and livelihood of all others.

No, we don't. We have a representative group empowered by active or passive consent with specific limitations on the "violence" they can actually employ, limits set by the people that empower them. Compare this alleged "monopoly of violence" the police have with that enjoyed by criminals, gangs, terrorists, and revolutionaries.

On occassion, these people behave as tyrants, overstepping their bounds harming others.

True in any social system that has ever existed.

By people do you mean 100% of the population or the people granted the monopoly of violence?

Any and all people.

No it is not.

From where then does objective justice come? Shall I be surprised when we learn that this alleged "objective justice" mirrors your own particular values and judgement exactly?

Human intellect and reason can determine what is just and unjust but that does not make it subjective - that is reletivistic from society to society.

And relative from person to person, and time to time. Look at how much what we consider to be "justice" has changed in just the last couple of decades. Then look back a hundred years.

Which is why the US set up federal checks and balances and a two tiered federal system, but those protections are erroding fast.

Evidence? Besides the fact that you just discovered the IRS taking out part of your first paycheck?

 

[Beerina]

What constitutes what a "society" ordered? What gives one government authority over another? Ultimately, you'll find nothing else besides might?

Hence the silly notion of bottling up the legitimate use of (offensive) force and allocating it only to a central entity, and authorizing it to use that force in limited situations and none others and that it has no powers besides those granted to it explicitly.


99% of humanity's historical problems can be traced to itself. And 99% of those problems can be traced to some guy or group of people picking up clubs and taking things from other people, or making them de facto slaves lest they get a swat.

Curiously, those holding the club rarely have problems bending others to their will, and only get upset when someone else holds the club. Few ever realize it's the power to hold a club that should be restricted. They just fight the eternal battle to hold it instead. This continues into democracy where modern politicians always talk of the greatness of democracy and rarely mention freedom. Freedom means freedom from government, which is an enormous threat to politicians seeking power via democracy. Not many politicians run on a platform of not doing something.

 

[Piscivore]

Hence the silly notion of bottling up the legitimate use of (offensive) force and allocating it only to a central entity, and authorizing it to use that force in limited situations and none others and that it has no powers besides those granted to it explicitly.


99% of humanity's historical problems can be traced to itself. And 99% of those problems can be traced to some guy or group of people picking up clubs and taking things from other people, or making them de facto slaves lest they get a swat.

Curiously, those holding the club rarely have problems bending others to their will, and only get upset when someone else holds the club. Few ever realize it's the power to hold a club that should be restricted.

Each (well, most every) person is born with two on the ends of their arms. How are you going to do that?

 

[Piscivore]

I don't care what you change your definitions to, the point remains. Under this understanding we have an elite group of minorities empowered with a monopoly of violence to decide the fate and livelihood of all others. On occassion, these people behave as tyrants, overstepping their bounds harming others.

And just to illustrate why privately owned armies are not such a great thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

 

[Patrick_R]

That's not my intent. I am pro-capitalist, enough so to have ruffled a few feathers on this forum myself. It should tell you something that where law and order has broken down, and individuals can implement a "do as you please" philosophy (without fear of being restrained by physical force if necessary), that concepts like free trade and property rights don't work.

What do you mean by a "do as you please" philosophy?

The free market libertarian freedom principal is not a "do as you please" philosophy.

How does free trade and property rights not work?