Political Atheism

[Dunstan]

What happens as far as defending against aggression isn't much different than how it happens with government.

I agree. That was my point. But earlier you posted:

My point is that "the people" don't have, themselves, the right to imprison anyone. It would seem to then follow that they can't delegate that right to anyone. The way this is rationalised is that somehow "the government" has the right to imprison independent of its members. That's the non-existent entity that has a power which is "superhuman" (i.e. a power that an individual person doesn't possess).

So which is it? Do people have the right to imprison others who have wronged them, or not? You appear to be condoning not just imprisonment, but forced labor:

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.

So if people have the right -- in your system -- to compel Fred to labor against his will, and can delegate that right to an insurance company, how is that morally any different from what government does?

Now before I see more people complain that this isn't perfect and therefore invalid let me say that I'm not claiming it's perfect. The fact that Fred is taking my property adds an imperfection into the world and there will never by any perfect remedy.

What you seem to be missing is that nobody here is claiming that government is perfect, either.

 

[Lonewulf]

The practical difference is a matter of degrees. Certainly homosexuals in California don't feel too good about check and balances. Neither do marijuana smokers or any other number of minority groups.

Not sure if I would be quick to compare the ingestion of a drug to sexual preference to the color of a person's skin, but you are looking at the flaws and seeming to say, "Hah! The system isn't perfect!" Of course it's not. No one ever said it is.

But it's the best we got. And there are a number of civil rights that have been successfully campaigned for, and won.

I'm not saying that all implementations of government or democracy are equal, but in the end they all boil down to a powerful group enforcing it's will on a less powerful group. So pointing to anarchy and saying it also suffers from this is a bit disingenuous.

Except that the Constitutional Republic of the United States is kept in power partly from the will of the people, as well as the Bill of Rights, and various other functions of government.

You're making "The Government" to be some static entity existing in and of itself, when it's not comparable to a group that operates purposefully and solely for its own sake.

If that's all government did, then I'd have very little to complain about.

Surprise, surprise, there's something to complain about the government.

That's why I would hire it out.

Okay. So you hire a larger force to serve you against another force.

The larger force is larger than you or your family. The people you hire decide to breach their contract and take advantage of you and your family.

How do you stop them?

The IRS proves that in spades.

You do realize that taxes actually go to at least some use, right?

But most those places have governments, how is that possible?

I don't know if I would say that places like Somalia have a government, per se. Nor in Darfur.

It will always possible for a strong group to overpower a weak group, that's undeniable, I don't claim otherwise. People team up for mutual protection in a number of ways, including government. What I advocate is not the elimination of such groups, but just a changed nature of the groups.

But the changed nature seems to do nothing to help anyone, and in fact would aggravate the situation by an incredible degree.

This applies equally well to government as to any other type of organisation. There's nothing magical about government which means it prevents this better.

Er, things seem pretty stable right now. At the very least, it's nothing comparable like Feudal Europe, and you're talking about something notably quite worse than that.

These are just assertions, which I disagree with.

They are assertions based on history.

Pollution is a property rights issue, and it's no different than any other form of vandalism and the remedies are the same. Businesses are kept in check by competition better than any regulation.

Really? Now who's making assertions?

Also, how exactly do you plan to break up monopolies...?

 

[adamruth]

It does not.

It explicitly, for example, authorizes the right to use force in self-defense. That's not a delegation, however, as there is no duty to use force. The state is not telling you to use force or not, which means that it's not a state action.

This principle is even recognized legally. When I delegate something to you, and you do it wrongly, anyone you injure has a cause of action against me (respondeat superior). If you use force (wrongly), then the state is not responsible for your use of force and you have no claim against the state.

Again, just semantics. Fine, I'll use your word, "authorise."

The government is the sole authority that can authorise the use of force. They enforce these authorisations through the use of force.

Not at all. Most people follow rules simply because they are rules (are you familiar with the work of the psychologist Stanley Milgram?), not because they are threatened. In fact, most people will follow rules even when they are told explicitly that they need not follow rules.

We're social animals, and that's how social animals behave.

This is only true to a point, if it wasn't then there would be no need for law enforcement. Remove jail time and property seizure for not paying income tax and you'll see a significant drop in revenue.

Yes, but government is not about "force," but about "rules." And it is necessary that a monopoly on rule-making exist (for a single society) to ensure stability --- you've seen what happens when that breaks down in the newspapers. Any organization with an ultimate monopoly on rule-making is a government, almost by definition.

The necessity of this is only an assertion. What I've seen in the newspapers is societies that have broken down due to sudden power vacuums. Snap your fingers and remove any social structure and you'll have chaos. In no way am I advocating revolution, I'm talking about evolving beyond democracy to a higher form of organisation. One that doesn't use violence to hurt non-violent people.

 

[adamruth]

So if people have the right -- in your system -- to compel Fred to labor against his will, and can delegate that right to an insurance company, how is that morally any different from what government does?

That was the question I answered that you said I dodged. The right to defend against aggression exists with everyone so it's okay to delegate it. The right that people don't have to delegate is to use force on people for non-aggressive acts. The majority of people in US prisons are there for victimless crimes (drug offences mostly). People don't have the right to tax individually, so they don't have that power to delegate. And there's much more that the government does.

What you seem to be missing is that nobody here is claiming that government is perfect, either.

I don't miss that point, I never claimed that they did. At no point have I even hinted at that.

 

[phantomb]

You have the right to imprison someone? Are you saying that you have the right to do everything that the government does, but you've given that right to the government?

You have to right to take some of my property and give it to another?
You have the right to wage war on people thousands of miles away?
You have the right to stop me from hiring my neighbour to to unclog my drains unless he's paid you a license fee?

Where exactly did you get these rights?

I think you've misunderstood. I don't have the right to imprison someone but I do have the ability to decide with others to give that right to someone else, which is what happened when early Human societies chose arbitrators and gave them the special right to make important decisions and settle disputes. In a world with absolutely no form of government or formal law, a person's rights extend only as far as the tacit rights of the people they are with.

If that "criminal" has done nothing to harm another person, then who are you to say it's okay to do violence on them?

I'm not the one who is saying it is okay, the entire society is saying it is okay, and together we are the majority. What is a criminal if not somebody who has broken the law (you know the law, that thing that represents the rights that the majority of people in the society want members of the society to have)?

 

[adamruth]

Not sure if I would be quick to compare the ingestion of a drug to sexual preference to the color of a person's skin, but you are looking at the flaws and seeming to say, "Hah! The system isn't perfect!" Of course it's not. No one ever said it is.

But it's the best we got. And there are a number of civil rights that have been successfully campaigned for, and won.

"Minority" in the sense of "fewer people" not race.

My only point in bringing that up was to show that the majority forcing itself upon the majority will always be a problem, no matter the system. It was thrown up as an endemic flaw of anarchy, when in reality it's a flaw with humanity.

You're making "The Government" to be some static entity existing in and of itself, when it's not comparable to a group that operates purposefully and solely for its own sake.

No, just the opposite. I claim that government exists only as the individuals who make it up, it's not a separate entity. Government people are no different from those in companies or charities. They're self serving and always will be. The same with all organisations.

The "checks and balances" of government work only as long as the people in the government choose to follow them. The same is true with private companies. The big difference is that a private company that chooses to fight against the market will be killed by the market. Governments that fight against the people can get away with it more easily.

Okay. So you hire a larger force to serve you against another force.

The larger force is larger than you or your family. The people you hire decide to breach their contract and take advantage of you and your family.

How do you stop them?

About the same that I would if the government started to infringe on my rights. I would seek redress through courts or other organisations. Like with life as it is, though, I rely on the desire of people to live in an orderly society to prevent it in the first place. The reason that police don't demand bribes from me daily isn't just out of fear of punishment, as pointed out by another poster, but because of a common sense of society.

It's hypothetically possible for a group to get enough power to start pushing people around, but market forces are very powerful and it's just not likely. Companies exist to make a profit, and they will avoid doing things that hurt that profit. Abusing customers when they have competition is one of those things.

You do realize that taxes actually go to at least some use, right?

Yes, but I wouldn't pay them if I wasn't under threat of jail.

I don't know if I would say that places like Somalia have a government, per se. Nor in Darfur.

That's why I didn't say "all."

But the changed nature seems to do nothing to help anyone, and in fact would aggravate the situation by an incredible degree.

You're talking about something different than I. You're talking about the collapse of a government with nothing to take it's place. I'm talking about an evolution to something better. It's all theoretical at this point.

Really? Now who's making assertions?

I am. I'm responding to your assertions with my own assertions.

Also, how exactly do you plan to break up monopolies...?

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.

 

[adamruth]

I think you've misunderstood. I don't have the right to imprison someone but I do have the ability to decide with others to give that right to someone else, which is what happened when early Human societies chose arbitrators and gave them the special right to make important decisions and settle disputes. In a world with absolutely no form of government or formal law, a person's rights extend only as far as the tacit rights of the people they are with.

I understood. What I'm saying is that you can't give something to someone else that you, yourself, do not possess. You cannot "give that right to someone else" unless you first have it.

That was the whole point of my comment that people are ascribing superhuman powers to the entity called "government." It is somehow able to create rights that people don't have. It can do things that no individual can, i.e. superhuman.

I'm not the one who is saying it is okay, the entire society is saying it is okay, and together we are the majority.

But you are saying it's okay, either explicitly by being in favour of it, or implicitly by allowing the majority to do it in your name. Society doesn't have a mind or will, only the people in the society have these things, so it is each of them individually saying it's okay.

What is a criminal if not somebody who has broken the law (you know the law, that thing that represents the rights that the majority of people in the society want members of the society to have)?

That's why I put criminal in quotes. The people don't have the right to do violence on someone who has not aggressed against anyone, but they allow the government to do it by labelling them a "criminal."

Laws are not, and should not be, sacrosanct. There are such things as bad laws, and I choose not to consider someone a criminal who only broke a bad law.

 

[arthwollipot]

Laws are not, and should not be, sacrosanct. There are such things as bad laws, and I choose not to consider someone a criminal who only broke a bad law.

Unfortunately, the government disagrees. If you choose to break what you beleive to be a "bad law", and you are caught doing it, the fact that you believe it to be a "bad law" is not a sufficient defense, and you will be penalised according to the law.

Your opinion does not affect the practice of the law, or of the government. Just ask Kent Hovind, who is now serving time in jail because he didn't believe that the government had the right to tax him.

 

[adamruth]

Unfortunately, the government disagrees. If you choose to break what you beleive to be a "bad law", and you are caught doing it, the fact that you believe it to be a "bad law" is not a sufficient defense, and you will be penalised according to the law.

Your opinion does not affect the practice of the law, or of the government. Just ask Kent Hovind, who is now serving time in jail because he didn't believe that the government had the right to tax him.

I know. That's the whole point of this discussion.

 

[phantomb]

I understood. What I'm saying is that you can't give something to someone else that you, yourself, do not possess. You cannot "give that right to someone else" unless you first have it.

A right is not a physical object. If the people that make up a society decide together that anyone living among them is allowed to walk into any building, private or public, but that they are not allowed to take anything from those buildings, then everyone in that society now has the right to walk into any building but not the right to take things from any building. Do you dispute this?

Now if, at a later time, the people that make up the society decide that people living among them will be allowed to take things from any building after all, then everyone in that society has just gained the right to take things from any building. Nobody had that right before, and yet, everyone has just gained it.

That was the whole point of my comment that people are ascribing superhuman powers to the entity called "government." It is somehow able to create rights that people don't have. It can do things that no individual can, i.e. superhuman.

No, people are not turning to an invisible government-entity to create their rights, they are deciding on the rights themselves and then creating a system to enforce those right called a government.

But you are saying it's okay, either explicitly by being in favour of it, or implicitly by allowing the majority to do it in your name. Society doesn't have a mind or will, only the people in the society have these things, so it is each of them individually saying it's okay.

Well, yeah. We all ultimately let our society do our talking for us by simple merit of the fact that we choose to live in it, benefit from it, and support it. If your society makes a decision that you disagree with you have many options available such as organizing like-minded people to try and repeal the decision, or, in extreme circumstances, leaving the society for one who's rules and decisions you better agree with. The "criminal" had this same chance. If you choose to live in a society you should be prepared to follow its rules.

That's why I put criminal in quotes. The people don't have the right to do violence on someone who has not aggressed against anyone, but they allow the government to do it by labelling them a "criminal."

The people of a society don't have the right to decide the rules of their own society?

Also, I've noticed that while constantly critical of where my rights are coming from, you've always just gone ahead and taken your own idea of what an individual's rights are for granted. My answer was that because there is no universal, absolute morality, a persons basic rights come from the tacit rights of the people they are with. How about you, where do your " The people don't have the right to do violence on someone who has not aggressed against anyone" and other assumed rights come from?

Laws are not, and should not be, sacrosanct. There are such things as bad laws, and I choose not to consider someone a criminal who only broke a bad law.

You seem to be dancing with the idea that if you don't like a given law, you shouldn't follow it. Unfortunately, this is just the sort of thing that formal laws were created to address. If you don't like a law, then lobby against it.
But if that doesn't work then I don't see what else you can do other than deal with it or leave and find a society with laws that you do like.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know. That's the whole point of this discussion.

Forgive me, I thought that the point of the discussion was whether the existence of government was a Good Thing or not. I'll pay more attention next time.

 

[adamruth]

A right is not a physical object. If the people that make up a society decide together that anyone living among them is allowed to walk into any building, private or public, but that they are not allowed to take anything from those buildings, then everyone in that society now has the right to walk into any building but not the right to take things from any building. Do you dispute this?

Yes, I dispute this. I have the right to let people into my home, but I do not have the right to let people into your home, and likewise you don't have the right to allow people into mine. And together we don't have a right to let people into Bob's home.

Now if, at a later time, the people that make up the society decide that people living among them will be allowed to take things from any building after all, then everyone in that society has just gained the right to take things from any building. Nobody had that right before, and yet, everyone has just gained it.

And then at a later time if the majority of people vote to allow you to be anally raped on the 50 yard line of the super bowl, then I guess they gained that right.

Well, yeah. We all ultimately let our society do our talking for us by simple merit of the fact that we choose to live in it, benefit from it, and support it. If your society makes a decision that you disagree with you have many options available such as organizing like-minded people to try and repeal the decision, or, in extreme circumstances, leaving the society for one who's rules and decisions you better agree with. The "criminal" had this same chance. If you choose to live in a society you should be prepared to follow its rules.

This is what I want to improve on. Have a system that better caters to and reflects the views of everyone, not just the majority.

The people of a society don't have the right to decide the rules of their own society?

Only those rights that they possess individually.

Also, I've noticed that while constantly critical of where my rights are coming from, you've always just gone ahead and taken your own idea of what an individual's rights are for granted. My answer was that because there is no universal, absolute morality, a persons basic rights come from the tacit rights of the people they are with. How about you, where do your " The people don't have the right to do violence on someone who has not aggressed against anyone" and other assumed rights come from?

This is a fairly complicated topic, but it all extends from the one natural right that everyone possess, the right to self ownership. All other rights are, as you said, just concepts created on top of that (obviously they don't exist in the real world since they can, and are, trampled on all the time). However, there is a natural and logical progression from that toward property rights. The rights that we all possess represent a balance of rights between everyone, "your rights end where mine begin." The maximum set of rights for everyone is that where nobody has the right to remove someone else's rights, when they have not removed anyone else's.

So, that's why I say that no one has a right to harm anyone who hasn't harmed anyone else. Obviously, this is all just philosophical, but I think that it's an excellent logical starting place.

I also think it makes logical sense that one person cannot give rights to another that they do not possess themselves. Any explanation just seems to be tortured rationalisation. The rationalisation seems to primarily be that those rights can be given to government because the majority has declared it so and minority can just lump it. It's not so much a logical construct, but an admission that might makes right.

You seem to be dancing with the idea that if you don't like a given law, you shouldn't follow it. Unfortunately, this is just the sort of thing that formal laws were created to address. If you don't like a law, then lobby against it.
But if that doesn't work then I don't see what else you can do other than deal with it or leave and find a society with laws that you do like.

More specifically, the idea is that if a law punishes someone for doing something that harmed no one, then that law should be ignored. That's not always practical, I know, there are plenty of laws I follow out of fear of punishment.

It's a good thing that the American Founding Fathers or Ghandi didn't take your advice. I'm not recommending armed conflict, far from it, that would send things backwards. I'm just interested in improving the system in ways that are outside of the narrow set of ways sanctioned by the government.

 

[adamruth]

Forgive me, I thought that the point of the discussion was whether the existence of government was a Good Thing or not. I'll pay more attention next time.

Sorry, you're right, that is the discussion (generally, I guess). The government disagrees with my belief that it doesn't have the right to enforce most of its laws. If it didn't then this thread would pretty empty.

 

[phantomb]

Yes, I dispute this. I have the right to let people into my home, but I do not have the right to let people into your home, and likewise you don't have the right to allow people into mine. And together we don't have a right to let people into Bob's home.

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.

And then at a later time if the majority of people vote to allow you to be anally raped on the 50 yard line of the super bowl, then I guess they gained that right.

Correct.

This is what I want to improve on. Have a system that better caters to and reflects the views of everyone, not just the majority.

How, and more importantly why? Deciding laws based on what the majority wants is, in general, the best way to create a safe and stable society.

Only those rights that they possess individually.

I don't understand what you mean. The people of a society have the right to decide only those rights that they possess individually? Forgive me if I mangled what you're saying, but I honestly can't make heads or tails of it. Just one paragraph down you say that you think that everyone has natural rights such as the natural right to self ownership.

This is a fairly complicated topic, but it all extends from the one natural right that everyone possess, the right to self ownership.

I asked you where your "natural rights" come from, not what they are.

All other rights are, as you said, just concepts created on top of that (obviously they don't exist in the real world since they can, and are, trampled on all the time).

I think your "natural rights" are the same kind of concept, except that I don't think many would agree with you about them. I think most people would agree with me in my position that all rights come from the society and that natural rights do not exist. If a society has laws that say killing and slavery are okay, it would be a terrible society to live in, but that doesn't change the fact that you would not have your "natural right" to self ownership if you chose to go and live there.

However, there is a natural and logical progression from that toward property rights. The rights that we all possess represent a balance of rights between everyone, "your rights end where mine begin." The maximum set of rights for everyone is that where nobody has the right to remove someone else's rights, when they have not removed anyone else's.

So, that's why I say that no one has a right to harm anyone who hasn't harmed anyone else. Obviously, this is all just philosophical, but I think that it's an excellent logical starting place.

Yes, it is all just philosophical, and that's the problem. This idea might someday be the founding principle of a nation, but it is not a universal truth that applies to everyone across history including people today.

I also think it makes logical sense that one person cannot give rights to another that they do not possess themselves. Any explanation just seems to be tortured rationalisation. The rationalisation seems to primarily be that those rights can be given to government because the majority has declared it so and minority can just lump it. It's not so much a logical construct, but an admission that might makes right.

Again, a right is not a physical object that you have to hand from one person to another. I don't think it takes much work to rationalize the fact that if a society tells you that you have certain rights and you defy them by breaking one of the laws, everyone else will see you as in the wrong and arrest you. Do you at least see that it is pragmatically true that rights come from the society?

More specifically, the idea is that if a law punishes someone for doing something that harmed no one, then that law should be ignored. That's not always practical, I know, there are plenty of laws I follow out of fear of punishment.

The law should never be ignored because, as I said, it is your choice whether you live in the society or not. The entire point is that most people in the society don't want individuals to have the ability to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. If you don't like a law, lobby to change it or leave. If your idea about the law is good, then I imagine you will be able to build some support and get the law changed.

It's a good thing that the American Founding Fathers or Ghandi didn't take your advice. I'm not recommending armed conflict, far from it, that would send things backwards. I'm just interested in improving the system in ways that are outside of the narrow set of ways sanctioned by the government.

The American Founding Fathers had the support of large groups of people, and they knew that their decisions reflected the will of those people. You have the support of very few people, and it is my opinion that the decisions you would make to change society reflect the will of almost no one.

 

[Tim Moen]

The American Founding Fathers had the support of large groups of people, and they knew that their decisions reflected the will of those people. You have the support of very few people, and it is my opinion that the decisions you would make to change society reflect the will of almost no one.

Does it concern you at all that most people would choose to live in coercive relationships, as opposed to free and voluntary ones? It does me... much more so than those who choose to believe in supernatural nonsense.

I think the four horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchen, Dennet, Harris) are doing a good thing by exposing supernatural nonsensical beliefs, don't you agree? I think that it is having some effect on religious beliefs, or, at least making people question their beliefs. I don't think that the will of many Southern Baptists will be changed very quickly, but, I hold out hope that eventually the collective beliefs of the world will shift to those that are more consistent with reality... but this can only come through the continued work of science and philosophy and the men and women who seek to enlighten those who live in darkness.

 

[paximperium]

Does it concern you at all that most people would choose to live in coercive relationships, as opposed to free and voluntary ones? It does me... much more so than those who choose to believe in supernatural nonsense.

No. That is a crap analogy and exceedingly insulting to battered spouses.

You have a system decided by and enforced by the will of the people(ie. society). Society has decided that anyone that wants to live within said society has to live by these rules. The power structure was decided upon by all and an individual can actually change it if he/she gets the support of the majority. If you want the benefit of said society, you live by the rules.

If you decide not to live by such rules you can:
1)Break the rules and reap the consequences.
2)Change the rules
3)Leave and live in a jungle or desert some where there is no government. In fact you could go into the Appalachians and do so right now and no one will be able to find you.

I think the four horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchen, Dennet, Harris) are doing a good thing by exposing supernatural nonsensical beliefs, don't you agree? I think that it is having some effect on religious beliefs, or, at least making people question their beliefs. I don't think that the will of many Southern Baptists will be changed very quickly, but, I hold out hope that eventually the collective beliefs of the world will shift to those that are more consistent with reality... but this can only come through the continued work of science and philosophy and the men and women who seek to enlighten those who live in darkness.

How does this support your beliefs about governments?

Do not try to equate the cause of atheism, which basically is about changing society and government to remain fair and secular, to the cause of anarchist who want to tear down government.

 

[Tim Moen]

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.

If morality is subjective then it would seem to be completely irrelevant and more of a description of what is going on. 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, 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. Men that wear government ID are taking my money therefore it is moral for them to do this. What could a secular ethicist possibly offer anyone if morality is just a series of observations?

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.

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?

 

[paximperium]

As a Moral Relativist myself, my concept of morality lies along a set of societal rules both formal and informal that decreases harm and increases benefit for as many individuals as possible in that society. Therefore it is entirely possible to objectively gauge the level of harm vs. benefits from such societal mores and rules. It is this balance that is inherently subjective and must be decided by all.

Slavery is harmful towards slaves in question and society in general. Rape is harmful towards the victim and society in general. Murder is harmful towards the victim and society in general. You can even go so far as to add in economic harm as well in just about all those situations.

Rape is never moral since it leads to harm towards the victim, the devaluation of people, unwanted pregnancies, spread of STDs, society fears etc. The "benefit" of rape is only to the rapist and even that is arguable.

In the US we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a foundation to sets the moral foundation for our nation. The mob cannot rule in this situation unless an overwhelming majority decides on that to change it. However, even such living documents and mobs can be completely wrong. Slavery being the primary example.

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?

If it is an all encompassing rule then it is harmful.

If there are specific criteria for the allowance for use of force such as self defense, first strike against someone who is preparing to attack your nation etc. then I don't have a problem with it. But then you've gone down the path towards setting up laws and henceforth a government at that point.

 

[Dunstan]

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.

Then I would suggest you reread the thread, because that isn't my impression.

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.

Universally preferable? That right there pretty much screws you. For example: Bob likes killing people. He doesn't just lose his temper or otherwise err and violate his own moral code. He really, truly believes that killing other people is morally preferable to peaceful co-existence.

There goes your hope for a moral system. You can't identify universally preferable human behavior unless you're prepared to say that your view, or the views of you and everyone who agrees with you, allow you to impose that view on Bob. And now you're right back to the same "mob rules" objection you started with.

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?

I'd have to add a lot of qualifiers to this, and I don't think it's a terribly useful exercise, because I don't really think that we have very different views of morality. It's just that you have what I consider to be rather naive views of how society can function. I believe that someone (or a group of someones) will fill any power vacuum; as imperfect as it is, I would rather have a power structure that at least acknowledges some limits to its authority (a constitution, the democratic process, rule of law). I think that your desired system would either degenerate into chaos or result in something that operates just like government anyway (and likely more like the worse examples of government).

 

[Tim Moen]

No. That is a crap analogy and exceedingly insulting to battered spouses.

You may be right. Battered spouses are often coerced with threats of violence to remain in the relationship. They often have no choice, just like an individual who would choose to only engage in voluntary relationships within a statist society has no choice. We have to pay taxes or violence will be visited upon us... we have no choice.

I think what I was trying to say was that most people believe that we require violence to get rid of violence, I think this is irrational. We submit ourselves to a coercive relationship with those who call themselves government because we believe that this is necessary. We encourage statism by voting and engaging in politics, we nurture the coercion.

This is like a battered wife constantly soothing and ecouraging her abuser in an effort to try to keep the violence down, or, in most cases (I work in a field where I see domestic abuse fairly often) bending over backwards to defend their abuser and extol his virtues. This of course doesn't end the cycle of abuse. The few battered wives that get out of these relationships do so by leaving and cutting off all association.

You have a system decided by and enforced by the will of the people(ie. society). Society has decided that anyone that wants to live within said society has to live by these rules. The power structure was decided upon by all and an individual can actually change it if he/she gets the support of the majority. If you want the benefit of said society, you live by the rules.

If you decide not to live by such rules you can:
1)Break the rules and reap the consequences.
2)Change the rules
3)Leave and live in a jungle or desert some where there is no government. In fact you could go into the Appalachians and do so right now and no one will be able to find you..

I understand how politics work. I'm just questioning the legitimacy of mob rule. A mob doesn't necesarily make ethical choices... if it decides I should die for no reason then I die for no reason. I don't believe that the accident of my birth gives others the inherent right to rule me.

How does this support your beliefs about governments?

It doesn't. I was just pointing out that just because the majority of people in a religion continue to believe in a religion doesn't mean that the cause of atheism is illegitimate. In the same way advocating for voluntary relationships in a non-voluntaristic society is not illegitimate.

Do not try to equate the cause of atheism, which basically is about changing society and government to remain fair and secular, to the cause of anarchist who want to tear down government.

I don't want to tear government down. I just want it to be irrelevant to my life and others who would choose. If nobody thought government was relevant then it would cease to exist. I don't want a bloody revolution, I would like people to embrace truth and freedom in all aspects of their lives. If you require a coercive force to rule in your life I wouldn't deny you that choice. You see the difference. Statism requires removing liberty, a positive action. Anarchism (at least the kind I espouse) requires no action which is not voluntary by the individual.