What happens if the vendor is a corner store? A super wal-mart? Is there a difference in morality?
What if there is no actual vendor, and the victim is just another hungry individual? Any difference in morality?
Try to explain how (if) anything changes when the thief commits armed robbery. Does morality change now that the thief is pointing a gun at the vendor's head?
What if the thief actually shoots the victim, in order to get the bread? Is this initiation of force still moral and just?
Finally, what if the victim is you or a family member? (I suspect this is the kicker that most of these armchair Robin Hoods haven't even considered.)
Only if you abandon the principle of voluntary association and accept that aggression a valid mode of human interaction. Of course, that's exactly what government teaches us: that somehow, when some arbitrary number of individuals get toghether, they acquire the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end.
In reality, there is nothing more unambiguous than the difference between voluntary association and association by force. Any possible human interaction must fall into exactly one of the two categories. When morality is defined as the abscence of force, there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
As for me, I will never accept that force is a valid mode of human interaction.
it's okay to steal a loaf of bread if you're hungry
How hungry, and how much bread? (To anyone who actually believes that stealing is NOT always immoral, I challenge you to provide an answer which is not completely arbitrary.)
That is an excellent summary of what socialism (and big government in general) does to society. Thank you for providing this insight at a time when the majority of people are tripping over themselves to get their little piece of the big government pie (or at least convince themselves that they're getting a piece).
There are very few people left in the world who actually believe in the principles of personal liberty and personal responsibility. The majority, it seems, have been brainwashed by government into believing that success is achieved through coercion, not personal achievement.
So essentially you see nothing morally wrong with letting this market develop on its own, yet you still insist on interfering with its development by force? Somehow, the magical force of government knows better how to implement this technology than the actual providers and customers themselves?
Sit back, relax, and let the customers decide for themselves how the market should develop. I don't believe you have the slightest moral right to interfere in the development of this technology.
Of course the VoIP infrastructure should be regulated
As pointed out elsewhere, regulation is redundant. We already have laws against force, theft and fraud. What special agenda did you have that requires something beyond the basic protection against force that government is responsible for?
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
The problem with this analogy is that government still holds the key. The lawyers cannot change government by their own will; they can only influence the people who actually do control government (the ruling class). Hackers, on the other hand, create and modify things out of their own will. You don't have to appeal to some higher power to create a computer program, do you?
The rich have no interest in the poor providing for themselves. So they create the concept of land ownership
The concept of land ownership (and property itself) was "invented" by human evolution, not the rich. We evolved to respect each other's right to property, because it was the most practical, efficient, and moral way to interact with others.
no concept of ownership, which is the purest definition of communism (communal living)
Communism is where the state assumes ownership over everything. The concept of ownership does not go away under communism; it is simply monopolized by the ruling class, with the backing of violence. In primitive societies, the concept of ownership still exists. Property rights are entirely natural, because we have evolved to understand and respect them, NOT because somebody with a gun tells us we have to. In the abscence of government, it is still immoral to steal, right? Or were you going to claim that a tribesman's brain just wouldn't "register" when his neighbor steals his hunting spear?
Perhaps you were talking about anarcho-socialism (voluntary socialism, like the Amish way of living)? That's not communism, because there is no ruling class, and no force being used as a means to an end.
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
The tool of government is force. Everything government does and possibly could do is backed by violence or the threat of violence. (The "right" to initiate force as a means to an end is what defines the ruling class.)
Government is a tool that can be hacked to work for you
Sure, if you believe in the paradigm of government. But I'm not a believer -- I don't believe in using force as a means to an end.
Instead, many hackers reject government totally. That attitude is akin to Luddism.
I realize that for the statist, turning to government for the solution to any problem is just "common sense". But as a statist, you have to realize that not everyone thinks as you do.
I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out that not everyone automatically accepts the statist mode of thinking (that it is moral and just -- even natural -- to initiate force as a means to an end). So next time you encounter a person who "rejects government totally", consider that there may be a reason for it.
a capitalistic system will evolve into a very small number of 'haves' ruling over and employing a large number of 'have-nots'
Are you claiming that the "haves" will posess the right to initiate force as a means to an end? (That's what the word "ruling" means.) In any event, your claim is nothing more than an assumption. One could just as easily argue that capitalism narrows, not widens, the gap between rich and poor. (If it weren't for the rich providing work for the poor, the poor wouldn't even get off the starting block.)
since capitalism and communism don't work
There is absolutely no proof that pure capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, i.e. the purely voluntary society) cannot work. You are right about communism, however.
Greed is the driving force behind all government. What reason does one have for joining the ruling class if not for the exclusive "right" to initiate force as a means to an end?
There is nothing unique about the states that makes our government inherently more corrupt than other nations. The only real difference is that the US federal government has a much larger, more productive market to plunder from.
(I realize there are a very select few representatives who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but they are the rare exception.)
While I agree with your endorsement of charity, I can't help but notice that you seem to equate involuntary servitude with voluntary association. There is a huge difference between donating to a true charity (one which doesn't accept government funding) and paying taxes. The former is supported by free will. The latter is supported by coercion (an explicit or implied threat of violence).
all kinds of civil liberties are being trounced on by the man that's "giving you tax cuts" (at the expense of a shitload of social programs, no less)
One of the most fundamental civil liberties is the right to choose where, when, and how your earnings are spent. The right to engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit. You speak as though there is some special difference between "financial liberty" and "personal liberty", and somehow, it is generally moral to infringe on "financial liberty", but not "personal liberty".
Liberty means being free from the initiation of force, so long as you respect the same rights of everyone else. The motive of the aggressor, whether financial or personal, is irrelevant. There is no difference between financial and personal liberty, unless you can prove that it's somehow immoral to engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit, but not immoral to engage in other forms of voluntary interaction for mutual benefit.
I'd much rather see that money go to the public good
Don't think for a second that the motives of a politician are any different than the motives of a corporate executive. They are both out to serve their own interests. The difference is that the corporate executive engages in voluntary association to serve his own interests (unless he is a criminal), while the politician invokes force as a means to an end.
How is the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy? Each little expansion of government adds to the overall momentum of expanding government (the general precedent if you will), which makes it a little bit easier to achieve the next expansion of government. To see how this works, simply observe the exponential growth of the US federal government since Lincoln.
Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin
on
The Empires Strike Back
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Naturally governments want to control everything
To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very rare exceptions.)
I'm a capitalist, but I don't read Forbes. I'm not rich by any means, I'm not even concerned with getting rich, but I'm still a capitalist. How can this be? Realize that capitalism requires nothing but voluntary association, and it all becomes clear.
Do you engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit? Then you are a capitalist too.
Force is not empathy. Voluntary charity is empathy. This is just another example of typical statist mindset: force is the only solution they can possibly concieve. That's what we're taught by big government, isn't it? Since I oppose the concept of forced support for welfare, I must be well off, right? I have never been well off, and probably never will. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is force, and why you think you are justified in the use of force to get your way.
Did you know that the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Let's put 2 and 2 together. Can you see why the average US citizen is reluctant to give to charity?
Initiation of force is defined in terms of property rights (your own body, of course, being the most valuable property you will ever own). Simply put, an initiation of force represents aggression against you or your property. Contrary to what you hinted at (ambituity, gray area), this is actually the most consistent, most unambiguous way to define crime there could ever be. What we are really doing here is defining crime in terms of simple human nature -- not in terms of "majority consensus" which is infinitely more complex and hence ambiguous. The laws of human nature can be summed up in just a few words: respect me and my property, and in return I will respect you and your property. It's an unwritten contract that is implied at every sigle encounter you have with other people (unless you are a criminal or hold a position of actual power). You know it already -- it's called the golden rule.
I shine a flashlight at your property
No initiation of force, unless of course it turns into repeated harrassment. Your other examples are really asking the same question.
Let me guess... as a statist, you can't imagine a society where the standard mode of interaction is voluntary association, and crime is defined only by the initiation of force. You can't imagine a scenario where a "majority" has no right to invoke force as a means to an end. How would anything get done?
This isn't news. It's the standard, predictable statist reaction to libertarian (or anarchist) philosophy. For those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions and welfare, a libertarian society is the last place they'd want to live.
Now you are implying that without government there would be no rules, and hence no peaceful interaction. Again I say bull. Human beings are quite capable of interacting peacefully without being forced. I know I am, and I know you are too.
I utterly reject the notion that government==force.
That's exactly what government teaches you, isn't it? Why don't we ask one of the thousands of civilians who've had thier house and land confiscated through "eminent domain"? The idea that these people somehow "agreed" to have their land confiscated before purchasing it is laughable. Nobody in their right mind would purchase land they know will be stolen later on. That's exactly what you propose, isn't it?
In reality, the social contract theory is void, and always has been. There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction possible: voluntary association, and involuntary association (force). The modes are mutually exclusive -- you cannot interact both ways at the same time. Thus, every possible human interaction falls into exactly one of the two categories. Agreed so far? Now, the social contract theory proposes that we "volunteer" to interact through force (to submit to rule by force). This is illogical. You cannot volunteer to be forced, any more than you can force a person to volunteer. Therefore, the social contract theory is void, and the reality of government is obvious. We submit to government because we are forced to submit, not because we "volunteer" to submit.
Slashdot Mirror
To expand, for those who still don't get it:
What happens if the vendor is a corner store? A super wal-mart? Is there a difference in morality?
What if there is no actual vendor, and the victim is just another hungry individual? Any difference in morality?
Try to explain how (if) anything changes when the thief commits armed robbery. Does morality change now that the thief is pointing a gun at the vendor's head?
What if the thief actually shoots the victim, in order to get the bread? Is this initiation of force still moral and just?
Finally, what if the victim is you or a family member? (I suspect this is the kicker that most of these armchair Robin Hoods haven't even considered.)
Only if you abandon the principle of voluntary association and accept that aggression a valid mode of human interaction. Of course, that's exactly what government teaches us: that somehow, when some arbitrary number of individuals get toghether, they acquire the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end.
In reality, there is nothing more unambiguous than the difference between voluntary association and association by force. Any possible human interaction must fall into exactly one of the two categories. When morality is defined as the abscence of force, there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
As for me, I will never accept that force is a valid mode of human interaction.
Reduce the size of government. The less power and revenue available to government, the less trouble they will cause.
How hungry, and how much bread? (To anyone who actually believes that stealing is NOT always immoral, I challenge you to provide an answer which is not completely arbitrary.)
That is an excellent summary of what socialism (and big government in general) does to society. Thank you for providing this insight at a time when the majority of people are tripping over themselves to get their little piece of the big government pie (or at least convince themselves that they're getting a piece).
There are very few people left in the world who actually believe in the principles of personal liberty and personal responsibility. The majority, it seems, have been brainwashed by government into believing that success is achieved through coercion, not personal achievement.
So essentially you see nothing morally wrong with letting this market develop on its own, yet you still insist on interfering with its development by force? Somehow, the magical force of government knows better how to implement this technology than the actual providers and customers themselves?
Sit back, relax, and let the customers decide for themselves how the market should develop. I don't believe you have the slightest moral right to interfere in the development of this technology.
As pointed out elsewhere, regulation is redundant. We already have laws against force, theft and fraud. What special agenda did you have that requires something beyond the basic protection against force that government is responsible for?
The problem with this analogy is that government still holds the key. The lawyers cannot change government by their own will; they can only influence the people who actually do control government (the ruling class). Hackers, on the other hand, create and modify things out of their own will. You don't have to appeal to some higher power to create a computer program, do you?
The concept of land ownership (and property itself) was "invented" by human evolution, not the rich. We evolved to respect each other's right to property, because it was the most practical, efficient, and moral way to interact with others.
no concept of ownership, which is the purest definition of communism (communal living)
Communism is where the state assumes ownership over everything. The concept of ownership does not go away under communism; it is simply monopolized by the ruling class, with the backing of violence. In primitive societies, the concept of ownership still exists. Property rights are entirely natural, because we have evolved to understand and respect them, NOT because somebody with a gun tells us we have to. In the abscence of government, it is still immoral to steal, right? Or were you going to claim that a tribesman's brain just wouldn't "register" when his neighbor steals his hunting spear?
Perhaps you were talking about anarcho-socialism (voluntary socialism, like the Amish way of living)? That's not communism, because there is no ruling class, and no force being used as a means to an end.
Government is a tool that can be hacked to work for you
Sure, if you believe in the paradigm of government. But I'm not a believer -- I don't believe in using force as a means to an end.
Instead, many hackers reject government totally. That attitude is akin to Luddism.
I realize that for the statist, turning to government for the solution to any problem is just "common sense". But as a statist, you have to realize that not everyone thinks as you do.
I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out that not everyone automatically accepts the statist mode of thinking (that it is moral and just -- even natural -- to initiate force as a means to an end). So next time you encounter a person who "rejects government totally", consider that there may be a reason for it.
Are you claiming that the "haves" will posess the right to initiate force as a means to an end? (That's what the word "ruling" means.) In any event, your claim is nothing more than an assumption. One could just as easily argue that capitalism narrows, not widens, the gap between rich and poor. (If it weren't for the rich providing work for the poor, the poor wouldn't even get off the starting block.)
since capitalism and communism don't work
There is absolutely no proof that pure capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, i.e. the purely voluntary society) cannot work. You are right about communism, however.
Greed is the driving force behind all government. What reason does one have for joining the ruling class if not for the exclusive "right" to initiate force as a means to an end?
There is nothing unique about the states that makes our government inherently more corrupt than other nations. The only real difference is that the US federal government has a much larger, more productive market to plunder from.
(I realize there are a very select few representatives who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but they are the rare exception.)
While I agree with your endorsement of charity, I can't help but notice that you seem to equate involuntary servitude with voluntary association. There is a huge difference between donating to a true charity (one which doesn't accept government funding) and paying taxes. The former is supported by free will. The latter is supported by coercion (an explicit or implied threat of violence).
One of the most fundamental civil liberties is the right to choose where, when, and how your earnings are spent. The right to engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit. You speak as though there is some special difference between "financial liberty" and "personal liberty", and somehow, it is generally moral to infringe on "financial liberty", but not "personal liberty".
Liberty means being free from the initiation of force, so long as you respect the same rights of everyone else. The motive of the aggressor, whether financial or personal, is irrelevant. There is no difference between financial and personal liberty, unless you can prove that it's somehow immoral to engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit, but not immoral to engage in other forms of voluntary interaction for mutual benefit.
I'd much rather see that money go to the public good
Don't think for a second that the motives of a politician are any different than the motives of a corporate executive. They are both out to serve their own interests. The difference is that the corporate executive engages in voluntary association to serve his own interests (unless he is a criminal), while the politician invokes force as a means to an end.
How is the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy? Each little expansion of government adds to the overall momentum of expanding government (the general precedent if you will), which makes it a little bit easier to achieve the next expansion of government. To see how this works, simply observe the exponential growth of the US federal government since Lincoln.
To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very rare exceptions.)
When it fails to be profitable for those in power. In other words, never.
Do you engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit? Then you are a capitalist too.
Force is not empathy. Voluntary charity is empathy. This is just another example of typical statist mindset: force is the only solution they can possibly concieve. That's what we're taught by big government, isn't it? Since I oppose the concept of forced support for welfare, I must be well off, right? I have never been well off, and probably never will. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is force, and why you think you are justified in the use of force to get your way.
Did you know that the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Let's put 2 and 2 together. Can you see why the average US citizen is reluctant to give to charity?
Ha, this is too funny. 10 minutes after explaining why statists can't understand the philosophy of liberty, I get modded down as flamebait.
Eliminate those who question the established conformity -- don't even let them get a word in. What a typical statist behavior!
I shine a flashlight at your property
No initiation of force, unless of course it turns into repeated harrassment. Your other examples are really asking the same question.
Let me guess... as a statist, you can't imagine a society where the standard mode of interaction is voluntary association, and crime is defined only by the initiation of force. You can't imagine a scenario where a "majority" has no right to invoke force as a means to an end. How would anything get done?
This isn't news. It's the standard, predictable statist reaction to libertarian (or anarchist) philosophy. For those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions and welfare, a libertarian society is the last place they'd want to live.
I utterly reject the notion that government==force.
That's exactly what government teaches you, isn't it? Why don't we ask one of the thousands of civilians who've had thier house and land confiscated through "eminent domain"? The idea that these people somehow "agreed" to have their land confiscated before purchasing it is laughable. Nobody in their right mind would purchase land they know will be stolen later on. That's exactly what you propose, isn't it?
In reality, the social contract theory is void, and always has been. There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction possible: voluntary association, and involuntary association (force). The modes are mutually exclusive -- you cannot interact both ways at the same time. Thus, every possible human interaction falls into exactly one of the two categories. Agreed so far? Now, the social contract theory proposes that we "volunteer" to interact through force (to submit to rule by force). This is illogical. You cannot volunteer to be forced, any more than you can force a person to volunteer. Therefore, the social contract theory is void, and the reality of government is obvious. We submit to government because we are forced to submit, not because we "volunteer" to submit.
Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?
No, I'm bitching about oppression.