John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[AvalonXQ]

We all behave immorally! From government to business to people to dogs.

That's true -- but we're not talking about governments being immoral by making mistakes; we're talking about governments being immoral by doing what they are current set up to do. When immoral behavior is against the rules, then you work to correct the behavior. When playing by the rules is itself immoral, then you need to change the rules.
If you change the rules of government such that government is no longer acting immoral (by eliminating its established "right" to initiate violence), what you have is no longer called "government" (which is essentially DEFINED by its right to coerce).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Right now I'm picturing a world where exactly what they're proposing is reality.

It's a battlefield with the corpses of men, women and children. Fires rage uncontrolled and all the other horrors you could imagine.

michael and Avalon are standing there going "Hey guys? It's not supposed to work this way!"

Me too. Ever see the prologue to "The Mutant Chronicles"?

 

[PGH]

That's true -- but we're not talking about governments being immoral by making mistakes; we're talking about governments being immoral by doing what they are current set up to do. When immoral behavior is against the rules, then you work to correct the behavior. When playing by the rules is itself immoral, then you need to change the rules.

Did you add an extra immoral in there? Because I'm reading that if the rules aren't immoral you change them and when the rule are immoral you change them?

If you change the rules of government such that government is no longer acting immoral (by eliminating its established "right" to initiate violence), what you have is no longer called "government" (which is essentially DEFINED by its right to coerce).

Listen man. Nothing's perfect. You work to make it as good as you can. You don't do away with it because it has a few problems, even serious ones. You do your best to elect good candidates and fight to peacefully and legally enact positive change. And the beauty of democracy is that it's designed to do this.

The alternative being proposed? Sovereign authority being broken down to the individual level? It's madness. We set all this up for a reason you know? Turns out it's rather effective. We're social creatures who rely on one another for survival. Every one of us holed up in a cabin with a shotgun and a sack of gold and turnips is a bit beneath us at this point. We've been to the moon! It was awesome. I'm more interested in seeing what else we can accomplish together than I am in every one of us being the ruling overlord of 2.5 acres of land.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Did you add an extra immoral in there? Because I'm reading that if the rules aren't immoral you change them and when the rule are immoral you change them?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think I actually was -- try reading it again. I'll also try to clarify.
The point is that there is a difference between:
a) being immoral by failing to follow moral rules, and
b) being immoral by following immoral rules.
In situation (a), you say "nobody's perfect", and you address the immoral behavior while maintaining the moral system. Changes to the system may be unnecessary.
In situation (b), you say "something is wrong here", and you address the immoral system. Changes to the system are almost certainly necessary.

The alternative being proposed? Sovereign authority being broken down to the individual level? It's madness.

Not any more, it's not. This is the 21st century; individual sovereignty no longer needs to imply a complete dissolution of the social order or the rule of law. We have institutions in place that can allow us to remain civilized even if we (carefully) dismantle the organs of government coercion.
It will never be a utopia, but neither will it be a distopia. It could be, I believe, a better system, because it would be a system without a rotten core.
Social order at the point of a gun is rotten at the core.

 

[PGH]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think I actually was -- try reading it again. I'll also try to clarify.
The point is that there is a difference between:
a) being immoral by failing to follow moral rules, and
b) being immoral by following immoral rules.
In situation (a), you say "nobody's perfect", and you address the immoral behavior while maintaining the moral system. Changes to the system may be unnecessary.
In situation (b), you say "something is wrong here", and you address the immoral system. Changes to the system are almost certainly necessary.

I think I follow. My thing is that we already have a system exactly like this and that's what you're trying to do away with.

Not any more, it's not. This is the 21st century; individual sovereignty no longer needs to imply a complete dissolution of the social order or the rule of law. We have institutions in place that can allow us to remain civilized even if we (carefully) dismantle the organs of government coercion.
It will never be a utopia, but neither will it be a distopia. It could be, I believe, a better system, because it would be a system without a rotten core.
Social order at the point of a gun is rotten at the core.

But you still do nothing to address the very real existence of human greed. The strongest (whoever owns the best business or resource or whatever currency you're dreaming up) will simply use their power to rig the system in their favor. Only now there is absolutely nothing standing in their way.

Citizens will have to band together to equal the wealthy. They'll need to establish their own balance of power or simply be slaves. They'll need to work to establish rules of law agreed to by all.

It'll start small and work it's way up the chain. There will be local fiefdoms that have to pay insurance to larger entities who will have to pay insurance to what will likely be one all encompassing nation.

At the end, if we're incredibly lucky, we'll have established the exact same system of government we have now. Only we'll have set ourselves back with a few decades of bloody tribal conflict first.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But you still do nothing to address the very real existence of human greed. The strongest (whoever owns the best business or resource or whatever currency you're dreaming up) will simply use their power to rig the system in their favor. Only now there is absolutely nothing standing in their way.

I disagree -- I think we're eliminating one of the tools by which they currently do this, by refusing to give any "system" any more validity than any individual has to harm another.

Citizens will have to band together to equal the wealthy. They'll need to establish their own balance of power or simply be slaves. They'll need to work to establish rules of law agreed to by all.

This is exactly right. Coercive government is NOT a moral way to do this, and there are moral ways. Which is essentially what you refuse to accept -- that any organization that refuses to intiate unprovoked coercion could ever successfully fight organizations that do. That intiating unprovoked coercion is necessary for survival. I simply don't agree.

At the end, if we're incredibly lucky, we'll have established the exact same system of government we have now.

No. If we're incredibly lucky, we might have a system with some moral validity -- a system with no involuntary coercion of innocents.
If not, we'll sigh and continue holding up citizens at gunpoint "for their own good".

 

[marplots]

If I'm following the premise, the Libertarian ideal is a system that runs on a free market backed up by a court system to confront abuses.

But isn't that what we have now with representative government? The free market economy of one man, one vote backed up by a court system to handle abuse.

I don't see why replacing one type of free market with another would change much. You'd still have coalitions, graft, bribery and all the bugga-boos you have now. You'd call them by different names, but they would function in the same manner. None of the institutions you rail against arose by fiat. They arose because of perceived needs and people advocating them -- and other people agreed they were a good idea.

People would be just as free to enter into agreements to get "crowd power" as they do now. It would be contractually based and private army enforced, but it would amount to the same thing -- if you want to participate, you have to pay. And guess what? If you don't like our rules you can move to another place/country/planet. Just like now.

Want to see it in action? Check out any homeowner's association near you. Don't like the rules? Fine. Don't live here. Only in your vision, "here" is everywhere, not just some cul-de-sac in the suburbs.

 

[Puppycow]

I love the opening comments made by one of the students who says:

"Liberty is an extension of my body. Because I own my body, I own the product of my labor. I own the property I produce with my labor. Therefore no one has a right to take my property without my consent."

Indeed, his comments form the core of the non-aggression principle, which is predicated on self-ownership and the property rights that follow from that.

If one takes a moment to think about it, the libertarian definition of property rights is the only definition that allows for peaceful co-existence. All other definitions of property rights ultimately entail the initiation of violence, which is distinctly different than the use of violence for self-defense or defense of property.

So, who owns the land? Or does nobody?

Nobody can claim to have created natural land by their own labor.

 

[Joey McGee]

<snip>
I love the opening comments made by one of the students who says:<snip>

Do you love how the first two comments are from pretty girls who say absolutely nothing of substance that will help us understand the philosohy? Does it not seem like they put there, obviously shoved to the front by overwhelming majority of guys, pressured to say something? Talked to like children by Stossel? Do you like that?

 

[Zep]

Surprised no-one has mentioned this yet.

 

[Wavicle]

Sellers can give better service to certain buyers if they chose, but that's not going to stop market forces from providing coverage to everyone.

An insurance company that has 10,000 subscribers and a police force of 100 men is just as potent as a billionaire who hires 100 men to be his personal police force.

Thus, if the billionaire somehow manages to pay his men enough money to launch an attack against one of those 10,000 subscribers, they will be facing off against a police force of equal power.

Of course, I highly doubt such a scenario would ever happen.

That's just plain silly. The insurance company has to spread its police force of 100 over 10000 subscribers where the billionaire has 100 private security forces to himself. The insurance company cannot dedicate all of its men against the billionaire because that would leave all of its subscribers not in conflict with the billionaire without coverage. The insurance company must keep enough police that it can keep the peace among its subscribers while still having enough to defend against the billionaire's mercenary force.

From a purely economic perspective, the best thing for the insurance company to do when the billionaire decides he wants to annex the property with the nice view of the lake is to settle with the billionaire and give him half of the property with the nice view without losing any of its police force.

However a clever Billionaire would instead clandestinely murder the inhabitants of the property in the night and then take the property but pay the insurance company to provide protection. It is in the best financial interest of the insurance company not to investigate how the previous owner died if that might mean they would stop getting revenue from the current owner.

 

[corbin]

I've said it before, it's completely voluntary. You can leave any time.

The fact that you can avoid the scope of involuntary taxation hardly makes those jurisdictions in which the involuntary taxes exist any less involuntary.

At the very least the involuntary taxpayer is being coerced.

 

[joobie]

i am never going to figure out how i managed to not get brainwashed into being the next che guerera or learned anything about contemporary marxist thought considering i went to a college far more liberal than john stossel, or for that matter probably most of the people you'll meet.

 

[Zep]

I find it amusing that stone-age man learned how to get along in communities and build civilisation up from there. As a cohesive and cooperative force they could kill much bigger prey like mammoths, from which all could be fed, and defending themselves as a group. Certainly a lot better outcome than individually trying to tackle those jobs, or just going off in different directions chasing individual mice, which they then traded with each other.

And yet...the extreme Libertarians like Suede want to take everything back to before that stage of development - every neanderthal to his own cave! Yep, it's gonna be great...

 

[Joey McGee]

I find it amusing that stone-age man learned how to get along in communities and build civilisation up from there. As a cohesive and cooperative force they could kill much bigger prey like mammoths, from which all could be fed, and defending themselves as a group. Certainly a lot better outcome than individually trying to tackle those jobs, or just going off in different directions chasing individual mice, which they then traded with each other.

And yet...the extreme Libertarians like Suede want to take everything back to before that stage of development - every neanderthal to his own cave! Yep, it's gonna be great...

I propose that we set aside a large swath of land for them to colonize from scratch and prove to the world how good their system is. By their account, their new nation will be surpassing ours in no time. We'll all promise to join once they prove it works.

 

[marplots]

I propose that we set aside a large swath of land for them to colonize from scratch and prove to the world how good their system is. By their account, their new nation will be surpassing ours in no time. We'll all promise to join once they prove it works.

Already thought of: http://www.paulville.org/about.html

 

[joobie]

And yet...the extreme Libertarians like Suede want to take everything back to before that stage of development - every neanderthal to his own cave! Yep, it's gonna be great...

with one caveat - they want their caves to have indoor plumbing.

 

[Joey McGee]

Already thought of: http://www.paulville.org/about.html

I was lmao because I thought it was a really witty parody. Then I found out it was actually for real! Amazing.

Well, we can't let them do it... once they start backing their money with gold and silver, it's over, our economy won't stand a chance.

 

[Zep]

with one caveat - they want their caves to have indoor plumbing.

And supplied for free, no doubt.

Mr Ogg: Look! Indoor plumbing!
Mrs Ogg: Huh. Not as good as Grugg's next door.
Mr Ogg: OK, I'll hit him on the head with my club and bring it here. Free market forces rulez!
Mrs Ogg: Don't forget to buy some milk while you're out...

 

[UWdude]

Only those countries who have had a history of strong (relatively speaking) property rights enforcement have become prosperous as nation states.

They are also most likely to be colonizing and enslaving the rest of the world. Imperialism is the end result of capitalism.