Eden and Evolution

Ricky Nguyen and Mariama Lowe never really believed in evolution to begin with. But as they took their seats in Room CC-121 at Northern Virginia Community College on November 2, they fully expected to hear what students usually hear in any Biology 101 class: that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was true.

As professor Caroline Crocker took the lectern, Nguyen sat in the back of the class of 60 students, Lowe in the front. Crocker, who wore a light brown sweater and slacks, flashed a slide showing a cartoon of a cheerful monkey eating a banana. An arrow led from the monkey to a photograph of an exceptionally unattractive man sitting in his underwear on a couch. Above the arrow was a question mark.

Crocker was about to establish a small beachhead for an insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin's view that humans and apes are distant cousins. The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, she told me earlier, and she was taking a risk by delivering it again. As a nontenured professor, she had little institutional protection. But this highly trained biologist wanted students to know what she herself deeply believed: that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science.

"I have no idea what you mean by that."

If this is true, I apologize. Sincerely.

I have had a variety of conversations in which a snide "oh, so that's what you are like, thank you very much" basically means "I don't want to talk about this because it makes me uncomfortable, so Id rather posture to make you look bad for daring to mention uncomfortable subjects".

If you weren't doing this, I'm going to chalk up the misunderstanding to differences between internet and in-person communication.

"Oh, we're back on that nonsense again are we? I said neither more nor less than I meant; apparently you're determined to read something into it, and then you blame me for the result. Why do you do that?"

Again, real life conversation experience. A "Thank you very much, period" reply to a long discourse is not an explicit snub, but, then again, neither is "he has beautiful handwriting" on an academic reference letter.

My experience is, very often, you get into an argument, you lay out what you think about an uncomfortable idea, your opponent doesn't want to do likewise, and so, he postures to make you look bad. If you weren't doing this, then I'm sorry for thinking you were. I'm telling you what I think and I'll say when and if I realize I'm wrong. I don't want to be postured aside for doing so by someone who isn't similarly willing to say what they think.

"Um, can I have some of whatever you're smoking? My posts in this thread are killing people? You seem.... er... rather excited. I suggest you lie down."

Look, I'll say it plainly. I started in heavily on this thread because I don't think we are necessarily out of the mass murders of the the sort that happened 20th century yet; culture is sticky, murderous-philosopher-king ideas seem especially so.

This is something I really care about. I suspect the next wave of killing will likely come, if at all, bolstered by a combination of Singer's type of utilitarianism and Dawkins' type of rabid anti-evolutionsim. Maybe I am totally wrong on whether this is a real risk or not, but I don't think I'm wrong for caring about preventing it, as I honestly think it is a realistic possibility.

Insofar as I think this is a concern, I think the issues the discussion led to are also a concern. They are connected to it. That's why I reacted the way I did to what I saw as snubbing of the discourse.

"In short, you implicitly believe the proposition that my property isn't mine, but is subject to the control of some agent of force. Which brings us back to my original statement: a fascist naturally gravitates toward exerting force on others. The main reason you can't process that, seems to be that you believe in exerting force on others, but don't consider yourself at all fascist, which causes paralyzing cognitive dissonance."

BS. First, to make this clear, I'm not anywhere near your property. I'm typing words onto the property of a third party, who has set up this property, ostensibly, for the typing of words. I want you to keep your property. I also want you to keep your life if the state ever decides the socialized cost of it is too high. There are people with some darn good arguments against your keeping your life in that situation, and I think one important way to fight them is with ideas. If you find those ideas fascist, please point to which idea makes you think this, instead of accusing me of being on your property against your wishes. I am not on your property against your wishes, not in any way, shape, or form.

And, fwiw, I'm not necessarily even advocating that I be allowed on this message board. If I am in any way on private property that the owner doesn't want me on (?), tell me, and I'll leave. I'm fairly new here, and if that is what you are talking about (???), tell me explicitly, and I'll go.

I am not a fascist. Or a socialist. Or a fan of philosopher kings. (On this thread I've been using the word 'fascist' interchangeably with the term 'socialist', not because I have some sort of weird cognitive dissonance thing with the term 'fascist', but because to me the core idea in both is philosopher-king command-and-control. And, more, because to my understanding, 'socialist' is the more general term and 'fascist' the more specific ('fascist' has meaning specifically about relationship between corporations and government, and military and national boundaries, 'socialist' isn't as specified on these factors, so far as I am aware).)

I think the "default" in human societies tribal leader or philosopher king. I think it is what happens if people don't put in a lot of work and thinking and organizational effort - some strong dude, somewhere, will go at the rest with a fist, and only effort and thinking will prevent this structure from winning. I think constitutional republican democracy is an structure that provides the immune defense against social structures headed by tribal leaders and philosopher kings, and all the misery and great human loss those cause.

I don't see how this is cognitive dissonance, or fascism. And I'm not freakin standing on your lawn, or anything remotely like. You imply that by speaking here, I'm doing anything at all equivalent to standing on your lawn against your wishes (unless the owner of the forum minds?), and you're setting yourself up for the charge of fascism.

"As for Jefferson, he regarded government as a necessary evil."

And yet he had a hand in designing a social system, apparently in recognition that doing so was better for people and for freedom than refraining from doing so.

He had the option not to help design the system, so it wasn't really necessary in the sense of being physically compelled. It was necessary *for* some relative *good*.

I'm not saying that government is good. I'm saying that many times, one government is better than the only other realistic options.

Yes government does bad things. But it can also provide structure to prevent even worse things. Is that good or bad? Depends on how you look at it... is it bad to imprison a murderer? It's a human being locked in a cube, and that's bad, but given the context, it prevents worse. And that prevention can be called good.

I expect the world to remain imperfect, because there is chaos in it, and that is a force for both good and bad. I don't think it is in the fabric of this world to wipe out chaos, one significant source of bad, without also wiping out life itself - and life is a great good. So, I think bad can be minimized (by doing things like locking up murderers and supporting our decent constitutional democratic republic), but I doubt it can ever be wiped out completely - to my understanding, the only way to do that is to wipe out good (specifically, life) as well.

"That puts him in a different league entirely than yourself."

No, I don't believe so. It means we were both pragmatists, who like social systems with as much liberty as possible, but with that 'possible' constrained by enough structure as is necessary to prevent revert to a tribal leader/ philosopher king system.

Look, I'll say it plainly. I started in heavily on this thread because I don't think we are necessarily out of the mass murders of the the sort that happened 20th century yet; culture is sticky, murderous-philosopher-king ideas seem especially so.

The best possible preventative is a heavily-armed populace. There's a reason you never heard of a Holocaust in which six-million armed Jews were massacred.

This is something I really care about. I suspect the next wave of killing will likely come, if at all, bolstered by a combination of Singer's type of utilitarianism and Dawkins' type of rabid anti-evolutionsim.

To be strictly technical, the wave of killing on world-war scale is going to be Armageddon.

BS. First, to make this clear, I'm not anywhere near your property.

Non sequitur. I said you believe that there is an authority with the legitimate prerogative of seizing my property. I didn't say you'd ever personally stolen anything.

You imply that by speaking here, I'm doing anything at all equivalent to standing on your lawn against your wishes (unless the owner of the forum minds?), and you're setting yourself up for the charge of fascism.

On the contrary. I came right out and said, that by (implicitly) insisting that there must exist an agent of force--what we usually call "government"--you have already conceded that some people have the right to aggress against others. When humans achieve genuine civilization, the very notion will seem abhorrent. The concept of "rulership" will be inherently repugnant, and the a debate about the best form of rulership will be seen in the same light as a debate whether it's better to be stabbed to death or bludgeoned.

Needless to say, we aren't there yet.

And yet he had a hand in designing a social system, apparently in recognition that doing so was better for people and for freedom than refraining from doing so.

Give the man some freaking credit. He realized that government was evil, but failed to escape the misconception that it was necessary. That's incredible progress, for a man raised in a mercantilist world. I don't begrudge him his error, in light of his tremendous accomplishment.

It means we were both pragmatists, who like social systems with as much liberty as possible, but with that 'possible' constrained by enough structure as is necessary...

That's what I mean when I say we haven't evolved to the point of true civilization. As long as we insist on "as much structure as necessary," we're still mired in our tribal past. True society will virtually eliminate victimizers. It certainly won't anoint a special class of victimizers with authority to have their way with the rest of us.

Put a bit differently, I'm sure you're as disgusted as I am when you see Teddy Kennedy sitting down to legislate. But you apparently want to throw the bum out and get someone else to replace him; I believe that the problem isn't really Kennedy, but the chair he sits on. I want to throw him out, and then burn down the building as a warning to anyone else with the gall to try and push other people around.

By "fighting anarchy" I mean organizing and working out interpersonal agreements. I think that in a state of chaos after a collapse of a social structure, this is something people will have to do if they want to head off tyranny. I also don't think the right thing will just sort of happen automatically, I think people will actually have to do the work of talking to their neighbors and discussing agreements and the reasons for them.

I consider this an example of formation of constitutionalism. There is some structure. It may or not be written down (you may or may not think writing it down better or worse). It can vary widely in detail (with some details being better than others, you and I may or may not agree on all). But it is not anarchy, so far as I am aware of the meaning of the word. There are structured rules, even if that structure is along the line of ideas like "for any given person, that person will defend his life, when attacked, with firepower". Even then, it is constitutionalism, and it is a type of rule by law. It is also not absolute freedom (that would technically include the freedom for you to steal my car without punishment), but I think constitutionalism, in at least some forms, has the potential for pushing up to a very high extent *just* freedom (freedom for me to not have my car stolen).

As far as having a world in which everyone is a little oppressed, versus one in which some group of people is very free (and a few people oppressed? not clear on your reason for "a large majority"), I can see your point about it being an important consideration in figuring out what the general trajectory has been. However, I'm still not convinced that the core part of the trajectory is what you say (and this in part because of the strength of the US conservative movement since the 1980s, even despite its flaws). Insofar as I suspect the overall trajectory may be downhill, I blame imperfections in things like the money system, and ideas about the educational system, and the fact that we were starting out with slavery (the important fighting of which provided opportunity for massive expansion of government power), that were there from the beginning. For these things, I doubt they would have had the effects they did, had they initially been laid out differently and clearly, and backed by strong cultural opinion.

As far as picking between a system in which people are a "little" oppressed or one in which a majority are "truly" free (does that mean *absolutely* free? because I have problems with that, see above, I think that technically includes to be "free" to infringe on rights and go unpunished), well, I'm not keen on the first and I'm not clear on the second. I'm interested in people having as much *just* freedom--say, freedom to keep their own cars, no freedom to steal their neighbors' cars without punishment--as possible, "possible" given that I don't think it is a cinch to come to interpersonal agreements that do everything well, let alone perfectly.

By "fighting anarchy" I mean organizing and working out interpersonal agreements... head off tyranny...

People are surprisingly able to work out their own agreements.

As for tyranny, humans will always wish to lord it over others, and they will always recognize the personal benefit in falling in with a warlord on the rise. Your proposal is to select a ruler, in hopes of avoiding a worse ruler, whom you call a "tyrant". The problem is that whatever ruler you pick will see the personal benefit in advancing his power, and will without fail work toward creating the very tyranny you fear. The United States government isn't yet a "tyranny", compared to others, but it's heading straight in that direction, and well on its way.

The only effective way to head off tyranny is for a critical mass of people to resolve never to yield to tyrants, and to be armed. They will resist the imposition of a warlord until the last man falls. But they will also resist what you call "organizing". Suppose someone comes along and says, "I'll work out your interpersonal agreements! It's like this: you tell me your problems, and I tell you my decision. Then, my decision is law!" He would be ignored. If he attempted to enforce his "rulings", his victim would kill him in self defense.

Which brings us back to my assertion that humans aren't ready. A critical mass must believe in freedom. Today, most people would pick a warlord, get behind him, and attack his rivals. Too many people are still slaves to their tribal instinct. That's why I can't make the leap today from minarchist to anarchist--even though I recognize that every minarchy will always evolve toward tyranny.

some group of people is very free (and a few people oppressed? not clear on your reason for "a large majority")

The ruling class is always free, in addition to having the license to oppress. A senator can do anything he wants with his property, and can also expect immunity from prosecution for victimless crimes. None of government's infringements affect him personally. Taxes? He's paying himself. Airport security? He can fly privately, or in military transport, if he wishes. Water conservation laws? The congress building has vacuum toilets that work on the first flush. Speeding? "Here's your license back--have a great day, Senator! Believe me, I'll recognize you on sight next time!"

Freedom for a few is no feat. Freedom for a vast majority would be a landmark achievement.

absolute freedom (that would technically include the freedom for you to steal my car without punishment)

No, that isn't what "freedom" means. It means that anything goes, as long as all interactions between more than one human are fully consensual for all parties. The only fixed rule of society is the golden rule.

Within that, consensual structures can be formed. I can hire you, if I agree to and you consent to work for me. I can fire you, if you don't fulfill the terms of your contract. I can start a club, as long as every member joins of his own free will. We can kick people out of our club, if they break the rules they agreed to when they joined. You can form a "Fight Club", in which every member consents to have the snot kicked out of him. You can even form a club that plays "paintball" using live ammo--as long as everyone consents to being shot at, and no third parties are exposed to danger.

But all of that's secondary; as long as the golden rule is followed, no explicit social ogranization needs to take place.

the strength of the US conservative movement since the 1980s, even despite its flaws

If you followed FReepers reaction to Katrina, you'd notice that these hard-core "conservatives" were extremely supportive of Bush promising more than $200 billion of our tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans. Bush is the biggest spender in the history of the solar system. I'm not so sure conservatives will stave off tyranny. If that's the plan, then I wish they'd stop using tyranny to fight tyranny.

I don't think it is a cinch to come to interpersonal agreements that do everything well, let alone perfectly.

Actually, it is. I leave you alone, and you leave me alone. See how simple it is? If you got something I want, and I got something you want, we'll trade. Voila! Free market. Civilization ensues.

The reason it doesn't work is that unevolved humans are uncomfortable when they don't know who's the chief of their tribe, and they don't really believe in the golden rule either. So when someone says, "I'm your chief!" they feel genuine relief. Then, when the chief says, "He's our enemy!" they willingly attack him. Other humans, afraid of this new warlord, will ask, "Where's OUR chief?" Government ensues.

Humans will be ready for civilization when they are truly shocked, horrified and amused by that latter scenario.

"The best possible preventative is a heavily-armed populace. There's a reason you never heard of a Holocaust in which six-million armed Jews were massacred."

Good point. I agree.

"To be strictly technical, the wave of killing on world-war scale is going to be Armageddon."

Why do you think so?

"Non sequitur. I said you believe that there is an authority with the legitimate prerogative of seizing my property. I didn't say you'd ever personally stolen anything."

You made an analogy. What I quoted from you was originally in that context - it was right after your fictional discourse presenting that analogy, IIRC (and I might not) it was a capstone linked to that previous discourse. That analogy involved me infringing on your rights while I warned about others who might potentially infringe on your rights.

I didn't infringe on your rights. I wrote message board posts.

To me this is suspicious because I wonder if you have a paranoia about structure. It is structure that reveals when I am, in fact, not on your property and thus not, in fact, infringing on your rights, and thus not, in fact, someone you are justified in shooting at.

"On the contrary. I came right out and said, that by (implicitly) insisting that there must exist an agent of force--what we usually call "government"--you have already conceded that some people have the right to aggress against others."

Yes, I believe there must be "government".

Government, as a broad principle, creates patterns by way of standards. This is not always in the form of a king breathing down your neck. Maintaining a tradition of firearms ownership is a standard (one that creates a pattern of less violence). Maintaining a tradition of somehow (communally, or by the person wronged, or however) punishing car thieves is a standard (one that creates a pattern of fewer car thefts, all else being equal). There is, in these examples, a reasoned principle governing behavior, perhaps voluntary (as in the firearm ownership example). That is a type of government.

"When humans achieve genuine civilization, the very notion will seem abhorrent. The concept of "rulership" will be inherently repugnant, and the a debate about the best form of rulership will be seen in the same light as a debate whether it's better to be stabbed to death or bludgeoned."

No, the concept of "rulership" is the concept of, do we support, somehow or another, anything systematic, in any way, or not? To compare imprisoning murderers vs. tyranny, to death by stabbing vs. bludgeoning, does not makes sense to me.

I say "yes" to supporting and advocating some systematic things, and this is because I can see some examples where this does much good, in a world where people have at least some choice over what they do.

If individuals have choice over what each personally does, then some dude might choose to steal my car. I am in favor of social rules that say if he does, he is to be punished in some way (maybe by me provided I can track him down, that is aside from the main point). I see this as a *just* rule because it helps prevent car theft. Even if each individual citizen carries out the work as it comes to him, it is a rule. It is a type of government. There is, at least, an abstract principle governing general behavior.

If you think something magical will happen and then no dude will ever steal my car, though dudes will still have the ability to choose to do so (but will all always refrain from the choice), then explain why you think this. My understanding of the world is different, and it is that living beings are opportunistic, and this is largely good because it helps them live (hey! that's food over there!) and create (hey! if I do this and that and this, maybe I can make a lightbulb!) and find niches (hey! nobody's opened a bakery on this block, I bet I can get a lot of business if I do!). I don't think you wipe out opportunism in beings without wiping out a great deal of good. My thinking is that a good way to deal with the bad aspects of opportunism (hey! that woman left her keys in her car, free car for me!) is to live by "rules" like "if you steal my car, I will find and punish you".

"Give the man some freaking credit. He realized that government was evil, but failed to escape the misconception that it was necessary. That's incredible progress, for a man raised in a mercantilist world. I don't begrudge him his error, in light of his tremendous accomplishment."

He lived in an era well after the development of the Anabaptist ideology, and (if my dates are right) after Rousseau's ideas were out, in a country with a good number of Quakers, and he was well educated in history and philosophy. He was therefore quite likely familiar with the general thrust of your ideas (religious anarchism), so I'm not buying the implicit suggestion that he didn't support them out of ignorance of some sort. And yes, he was raised in a mercantilist world, but he had a wealth of history and philosophy from which to learn. He deserves credit, but painting it as if were at the near-thrall of a merchantilistic world, struggling against that half-blinded, is misleading.

"That's what I mean when I say we haven't evolved to the point of true civilization. As long as we insist on "as much structure as necessary," we're still mired in our tribal past."

"As much structure as necessary *for a clearly stated purpose* and *without interfering with these other good things*" constrains structure. This is totally different from "as much structure as necessary, period", which it totally unconstrained, and the dishonest psychological tool of tyrants.

A culture of gun ownership is a sort of structure. Mammalian cells are a sort of structure, a sort quite necessary for human civilization, barring complete reweaving of the fabric of the world (which you might believe in, for all I know). I don't see any of us getting any civilization without structure of some sort. To me, it is just a matter of whether or not you are being honest and open regarding calling structure structure, or whether you confuse bad structure with all structure, and end up warring against structure for being structure. The latter I find problematic - this is because my mind has structure, so does my body, and so does the boundary of your property.

Do you think "true" civilization will overturn all of our tribal past, or just some of it? What about family? Is this a tribal-era structure that will be wiped out, according to you, or will it survive into "true" civilization? There are rules governing it - yet it makes possible a great deal of good, voluntary interactions, and helps provide some important social decentralizing function.

"True society will virtually eliminate victimizers. It certainly won't anoint a special class of victimizers with authority to have their way with the rest of us."

A good society will virtually eliminate tyrants, yes. Warring against all structure isn't going to get that, not in this world.

Victims are sometimes their own victimizers, so I'm not sure that any society can virtually eliminate victimizers.

Why do you think so?

Because the coming of Messiah is very near. The rest of our conversation is predicated on the assumption that Messiah hasn't come yet, and will be moot when he does.

To me this is suspicious because I wonder if you have a paranoia about structure.

On the contrary, I keep saying plain as day that you keep insisting on the need for "structure", where that value-neutral term almost certainly means that there must exist a hierarchy of the sort usually called "government".

If you believe that taxation is not theft, then you are part of the problem: you believe that some theft is morally legitimate. IF humans ever achieve true civilization, if will not involve any adult human initiating force on any other adult human for any reason whatsoever.

I can't tell if you're really understanding this, because most humans can't imagine a world without "government", and you seem to have the same difficulty. Such people are usually easy to spot: explain to them how society works without government, and they ask, "So who's in charge?" Nothing you say will convince them that there isn't really a government at work somewhere in the picture. After all, having a government is synonymous with "civilization"....

I am, in fact, not on your property and thus not, in fact, infringing on your rights, and thus not, in fact, someone you are justified in shooting at.

Obviously I won't shoot you for telling me that I must obey the government. If I had a death wish, I would shoot the government emissary who tries to infringe on my rights, not you. But to the extent that you condone his crimes, you are indeed part of the problem. You're essentially an unindicted co-conspirator.

No, the concept of "rulership" is the concept of, do we support, somehow or another, anything systematic, in any way, or not?

No; you're experiencing the difficulty that I described above. Namely, you can't really accept the concept that "rulership" itself is not necessary. If I'm not infringing on your rights, then the ruler has nothing to do. If I am, you will defend yourself, and again the ruler has nothing to do. No ruler is actually necessary.

In fact I'm a minarchist, rather than an anarchist, for one reason. Humans aren't capable of accepting that rulership is itself not necessary. Therefore, if all governments magically vanished tomorrow, a critical mass of people would immediately start creating them. They'd start with warlords, and work their way up to congresses in no time. The folks (like me) who say, "Hey, you've just been freed from slavery--why do you want back IN?" will be suppressed quickly.

Yes, I believe there must be "government".

Exactly. Too many people make the same mistake. Believing in government means you believe the government can tax me, whether I like it or not. I assume you'll make the silly excuse that I'm "benefitting from government services" that I never asked for and, given a choice, wouldn't pay for. In other words, you believe that one special gang of thugs should be blessed with the authority to take my stuff, imprison my person, and even, potentially, take my life. You are part of the problem.

Government, as a broad principle, creates patterns by way of standards.

Your flowery language seems to help you dodge the hard reality. "Government" is a bunch of people who can take our stuff, whether we like it or not, and can use whatever level of force against our persons that they deem necessary for their own ends. When the Mafia does it, it's organized crime. When a man in a dark suit does it, you believe he's entitled.

If you think something magical will happen and then no dude will ever steal my car...

Of course people will try. However, you will shoot them. Problem solved. Crime will exist, but it will be much rarer than it is today.

living beings are opportunistic

Exactly! They can comprehend the simple equation: "Trade benefits us both. Stealing will get my @ss shot. Hmmm.... Lemme think about this one..."

What about family?

I believe that family is necessary for society to function. That is one of the reasons that I don't believe humans will ever finally achieve civilization. You can see it in college: thousands of kids leave "daddy" every year, and immediately begin a terrifying clamor for a new "daddy". That's why every human being is, at some point in his life, a socialist. I was, until I was about 12. Most people are until their late twenties, when they've had to pay a few tax bills. Well-raised kids graduate from socialism by age 5 or so. But every last one of us is born socialist. That's why there seems to be such an inexhausitble supply of them.

Victims are sometimes their own victimizers, so I'm not sure that any society can virtually eliminate victimizers.

Civilization doesn't eliminate every negative aspect of humanity. If a man victimizes himself, then both parties are consenting to the transaction. There's not much that "society" can do about it. Nor should we try! Your reasoning is precisely that of the folks who would ban smoking, or fatty foods... as soon as you decide that someone should force me to do X, for my own good, you're demonstrating that you've only recently swung down from the tree branches and started walking upright.

"'The best possible preventative is a heavily-armed populace. There's a reason you never heard of a Holocaust in which six-million armed Jews were massacred.'

Good point. I agree.

'To be strictly technical, the wave of killing on world-war scale is going to be Armageddon.' [...]"

No, wait, I qualify my above comment further. I think that in a free society (free in the sense that one can say what one likes and own arms and free to keep the car he has earned (etc.), but not free in the sense that he can steal a car and go unpunished), an open and honest discourse is an important component of preventing mass murder and other evils.

If my neighbors are armed, and most of them (or all of the most vocal and most active) believe that my parents and husband and should to be sacrificed to Zeus (or the abstract twin gods of eliminating pain and stopping all (including cultural) evolution, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster) when they turn 70 or go blind or have kidney problems, arms alone don't do the trick. Arms are necessary, not sufficient. Open, honest, educated discourse is also important, at least.

I don't think myopically believing that arms alone are all that matters helps much. I have real concerns. I've laid them out and backed them up with well-connected ideas with and references. Thankfully, we're not living in a total dystopia, we're living in a largely armed society, and one in which we can influence legislation. It's not perfect, but it should be enough to fight future cases the Schaivo case portends. To be dismissed on the grounds that no mass murder will happen until Armageddon is not morally satisfying, unless you define as Armageddon whatever the next mass murder happens to be, and dismiss all efforts aimed at preventing that as futile.

Cryptic references to Armageddon may make you feel wise and deep, or like you are letting trickle out what you know to be deep truth, but they are not satisfying to someone who really cares about potential mass murder and doesn't happen to share all of your beliefs. If anything, it shows a fatalistic complacency; alone the lines of "just don't worry about that despite the evidence you presented that has you worried, I know the only real danger is this other thing."

Also, I strongly resent earlier implication in this thread (I believe in your fictional "discourse" bit) that my concern for what I see as a very real problem, and willingness to back up that concern explicitly, suggests that I am somehow disjointed. Energized concern about serious ideas is not sick, and it is a lie that not remaining chill about everything reveals some sort of disjointedness. You didn't say that, but you implied it heavily with rhetoric. Remaining chill about potential mass murder, when there are both a history of it and what appears to be intellectual efforts behind a new wave of it, does not prove you are any more mentally aware than I, and I don't care how many cheap quips you make about downing beer with Jefferson. That level of social "I'm so chill so I must be right!" posturing wouldn't work in South Park, for corn's sake.

Also - I forgot to make explicit the force behind "government" of the sort I discussed in my last post. Notices that many of my examples involved the word "voluntary". The force behind patterns that are initiated voluntarily, is individual volition. Individual volition comes from a combination of genetic inheritance (getting pissed when someone steals your car), cultural inheritance (learned belief that if someone steals your car, you are are right expect him to be punished one way or the other, perhaps by you), and individual conscious thought (recognizing, perhaps with the aid of some sort of study or discussion, why it is that you are right expect the dude that stole your car to be punished).

It didn't occur to me right off the bat that this force was central to what you were getting at, so I instead left it to words like "voluntary", but I'm now guessing it was (I haven't yet read the posts I haven't yet replied to). It is not at all because I am cognitively dissonant, which I guess you will accuse me of yet again. It is because I am not paranoid about forces or government all being bad. I actually think many of them (forces and governing principles) are how we voluntarily run our lives, for the good. Alarm clock use is a governing principles. Hunger for breakfast is a force. Part of it is seeing the world the they eyes of "heck! lots of this stuff isn't oppressive!", and thinking about the nature of those non-oppressive, yet often systematic, things.

You don't know everything anymore than I do. Each person thinks the neighbor who has ideas hooked up in his head significantly differently than he himself does is both paranoid (has undue connections) and cognitively dissonant (lacks important true connections). The check on each is evidence. The check is not "I'm so chill, you're so pissed" posturing.

I think that in a free society (free in the sense that one can say what one likes and own arms and free to keep the car he has earned (etc.), but not free in the sense that he can steal a car and go unpunished)

As I said, "freedom" never includes the right to initiate force against someone else. You don't need to specifically mention such an exclusion, except perhaps in grammar school, when teaching the kiddies about freedom.

If my neighbors are armed, and most of them... believe that my parents and husband [I] and should to be sacrificed to Zeus... arms alone don't do the trick.

True--but that's equally true today. If your neighbors are all satanists, they might decide to use you for a black mass, and you and your pistol might not be enough to stop them. But worse, if the government decides that your wacky little religion displeases them, your pistol won't stop them from surrounding your place with tanks, pumping if full of CS gas, and then setting it on fire. So I accept what you say here, but I dispute whether it would be any worse than today.

Your point is good from another angle, too. It's worth pointing out that you do have the right to hire a security guard. If you're allowed to shoot in self defense, then you're also allowed to hire someone to do that for you. You and your neighbors can, if you all agree, hire some security guards and divvy up the cost. For example, if everyone on your cul de sac agrees, you can stick a gate on the end of the road, with a guard booth, and have other guards running foot patrols.

Aha! You might reply. Isn't that what the police do today? The answer is no; the police force me to pay for them whether I wish to or not. In the above scenario, your neighborhood is protected, but everyone is participating voluntarily. But even more importantly, there's an issue of jurisdiction: these guards can protect your homes, even using deadly force. But they have no authority to roam outside your neighborhood and bust into people's homes. In other words, these guards are truly your servants, not your masters.

If you fast forward that scenario a few years, you'll realize I think that before long there would be a handful of fairly big security firms. Pinkertons might be big in the west; Securitas in the northeast; Seguridad in the southesast, etc. So doesn't that mean that we have a de-facto government? Or a handful of warlords--namely, the CEOs of those companies?

The answer is no. Many people won't hire any security firm; they'll arm themselves heavily, and put man-traps near their basement windows. If you think the Pinkertons are too uppity, you are free to stop paying them. You could hire Securitas instead, or you could start your own security company and compete with them. And best of all, the security company has no power whatsoever to "make laws". All they can do is provide guard services.

By contrast, today's police are effectively rulers. They can break into your house on filmsy excuses--such as anonymous tips, or "glimpsing illegal activity through your window", or any other made-up "probable cause". They routinely harrass motorists, and if all else fails they will claim you were "weaving around the road." If they shoot you, there's a general presumption that they were within their rights to do so, sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't, and SOME of those times they're punished for it. But they get away with some pretty broad excuses: the wallet in his hand looked like a gun; he reached suddenly for his pocket; it was dark; etc. And worst of all, police face no competition. The Pinkertons will try to please you, so you don't switch to Securitas.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm not describing a Hobbesian "all against all" sort of jungle. Many "government" jobs will be taken over by insurance companies, security companies, etc. Everything government does can be done better on the free market.

It is because I am not paranoid about forces or government all being bad.

In other words, it's OK with you that they have the authority to take your property, tax your money, and arrest or shoot you, because you feel trustful that they won't use those powers in ways that you object to (very much). It's touching that you have this level of trust. If I don't share it, am I allowed to opt out? If I can opt out, then I wish you the best of luck with this "government" thing of yours. If I can't, then you are approving the use of force against me.

"'By "fighting anarchy" I mean organizing and working out interpersonal agreements... head off tyranny...'

People are surprisingly able to work out their own agreements."

I am aware of this, it is what I was getting at. The difference seems to be that I don't think it is off limits to think about it.

"Your proposal is to select a ruler, in hopes of avoiding a worse ruler, whom you call a "tyrant"."

No, in fact, my proposal is to recognize that the types of agreements people come to on their own volition (which is an integration of biological inheritance, cultural inheritance, and personal thought, all ultimately, though indirectly, checked by reality) are a sort of structure, and thus, not anarchy, but constitutionalism.

Once one admits to oneself that this is in fact constitutionalism, one becomes much less interested in anarchy. The only way you get anarchy is to vaporize people. Then what was people will move nice and randomly, because it will be gaseous. Any other option is either constitutionalism of some sort, or "arbitrary" rule by a tyrant (really directed by his personal will), or some combination of the two. Note that any of these three non-vaporization options will still involve some element of randomness, because randomness is build into the fabric of the world.

There is no "critical mass" to anarchist utopia. There are degrees of kind to better and better forms of constitutionalism. You'll still always get some mistakes involving "whoops, I thought it was you who stole my car".

"The ruling class is always free, in addition to having the license to oppress. A senator can do anything he wants with his property, and can also expect immunity from prosecution for victimless crimes."

Yeah, so, a type of constitutionalism that doesn't involve this sort of garbage, and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny, is better than a type that does. That doesn't mean that better constitutionalism equals anarchy.

"'absolute freedom (that would technically include the freedom for you to steal my car without punishment)'

No, that isn't what "freedom" means. It means that anything goes, as long as all interactions between more than one human are fully consensual for all parties. The only fixed rule of society is the golden rule."

Yes, what I said *is* what absolute freedom for an individual means - freedom for him to steal my car and go unpunished. *Just* freedom, on the other hand, is what you have when the 'freedom to oppress' is checked by the 'freedom to punish rights infringement'. This overall maximizes human freedom and overall minimizes human oppression (the punishment of the car thief is still a sort of oppression, but it is a *just* sort, because it is necessary for maximizing individual freedom for all individuals, which ultimately is necessary for the flourishing of human potential and life, and for individual happiness).

This is what you get people have it in their heads that it is wrong to steal cars and right to punish car thieves - and the vast majority of people have this, and other similar principles, in their heads. Today. They've usually just got other weird stuff interfering, and your confounded use of the word 'freedom' doesn't help clarify much anything for honest, curious, thinking people. It just makes them cognitively dissonant if they swallow it.

"Within that, consensual structures can be formed. [...]"

I quite agree with this section, although your weird use of the term 'freedom' makes it quite difficult to back this up clearly.

"But all of that's secondary; as long as the golden rule is followed, no explicit social ogranization needs to take place."

First:
Once you get one single curious person willing to violate the golden rule for some reason, you need someone else to violate the golden rule. So, if you have one person stealing a car, you have to have another person treating him in a way that is *NOT* as this second person would like to be treated if he were in the first's position (the second person would probably like to be let off scot-free if he were caught stealing a car), but as he *should* be treated.

This is where you flirt with utopianism and tyranny. For your system to work, there can't be any curious or opportunistic people wanting to see if they can get away with car theft. Curiosity and opportunism cannot be eliminated in this world without wiping out a great deal of good. Car thieves cannot be let off scot-free without encouraging a great deal of evil.

Second:
Non-explicit social organization is still social organization! It is still a form of constitutionalism, whether people talk about it or not! Your fear is not constitutionalism, it is talking about it. You dress up your ideas about constitutionalism as "anarchy" in an effort to prevent conversation. Your ideas about constitutionalism may be very well and good, but (1) they are not anarchy, and (2) evil does not result from thinking or talking about things.

"If you followed FReepers reaction to Katrina, you'd notice that these hard-core "conservatives" were extremely supportive of Bush promising more than $200 billion of our tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans."

This is a good point.

I tend to think I can make my case against garbage like this better if I don't use terms like 'freedom' in a confounded manner. And, also, if instead of railing about a confounded use of the term 'freedom', I point out that garbage like government funded natural disaster recovery actually ends up killing more people an wasting more hard-created wealth in the long term, because it discourages people from taking care when deciding whether to build in a natural disaster zone, and if so, how robustly to design the buildings. Instead of thinking carefully about risk, people are encouraged to figure that Big Brother will just clean up after their decisions. Very like what you would get if you replaced the drug war with government funded drug treatment.

FYI, I'm OK with private charity to help people in both situations (natural disaster and drug recovery), because charity doesn't involve entitlement, and it can be given with privately-determined constraints ("you can take this if you sign a contract not to build in a disaster area again unless the buildings are designed to withstand such-and-such"), and all of the tyrannic corruption and carelessness entitlement breeds. I would explain my position giving this context, and (because I am not cognitively dissonant) by relating this context to 'freedom' with the definitions I gave in the preceding section. I would not expect a confounded definition of freedom, just it on its own, to convince anyone but the psychologically weak and easily bullied. There's a reason people don't listen to your confounded arguments, and it's not because you're better than they are.

"Actually, it is. I leave you alone, and you leave me alone. See how simple it is? If you got something I want, and I got something you want, we'll trade. Voila! Free market. Civilization ensues."

Golly gee, so if no one ever steals a car, or does anything else bad ever, everything will be perfect!

I kind of like this. If I never slip on the wet pavement, I'll never break my hip from having slipped on the wet pavement! Paradise, here we come!

The problem with this is that if we, dazed by utopianism, pretend we can rely on it alone, we will figure there will be no need for anything that can help mend hips. Yet, there *will* be strong demand for something (folk knowledge, private-board certified doctors, fair-trade cotton bandages and plaster, first aid manuals, something) that can mend hips, because this is not a perfect world. Demand will be met. And if it is urgent, and that which can meet it is in short supply (perhaps because people have been conned into refraining from thinking about what to do in such a situation), it will not be met well (think: charlatan phony "doctors").

The analogy between this hip utopia turned hip dystopia and your social utopia (or "true civilization") is this. If there is no structure for dealing with the rights-infringing opportunists who will eventually crop up, because opportunism is not something that can be wiped out in humans without turning them into dead things (and your "do unto others" bit ensures that you will have no such structure), there will be HUGE incentive to rights-infringing opportunities, and thus HUGE and URGENT demand for someone to take care of the evil doers. HUGE. URGENT. You know who will satisfy that demand on the quick? A cheap, two-bit, third-world-style, tyrant.

That's why it is no cinch. 'Perfection' is 'finished' is death, period. You do not wipe out opportunism without starving or otherwise wiping out humans. And you do not ignore the fact that there will always be some incentive to people for rights-infringing opportunism, and you do not treat rights-infringing opportunists the way you would like to be treated if you were in their position, without creating huge and urgent demand for tyrants.

Even people who have been through Armageddon-like hellishness will be pissed when someone steals their cars or rapes their daughters or whatnot (if they weren't, any social mutant who decided to rape all the daughters and steal all the wealth would go unpunished and, in doing so, disproportionally exert influence on the next generation), and if there aren't some organizing principles in place that function decently when these evils happen, there will be demand that will be satisfied very quickly by a tyrant.

No, in fact, my proposal is to recognize that the types of agreements people come to on their own volition (which is an integration of biological inheritance, cultural inheritance....

A legitimate area of intellectual discourse. However, I'm not sure you realize that nobody needs you to finish these cogitations of yours before they proceed to make their own agreements with their neighbors. You appear to believe that this needs to be "thought about" so that it can be organized in the best way. The only way to "organize" is by force, so it appears that your ponderings keep leading back to the belief that someone out there needs to enforce "the rules" for society to function.

The reality is that anyone who wants to enforce "the rules" is himself the problem. He can be well-meaning; he can be wise as a prophet, honest as a saint, innocent as a baby and sincere as anything, but he's still the problem: he still believes that initiation of force against others is called for.

There is no "critical mass" to anarchist utopia.

Temporary anarchist societies have existed before. For a good few years, the Pennsylvania colony was one. A "critical mass" is necessary to prevent that from collapsing back into archy of some sort--exactly as happened with Pennsylvania.

Yeah, so, a type of constitutionalism that doesn't involve this sort of garbage....

There is no form of "constitutionalism" that is without (1) legislators, (2) enforcers, or (3) both. Those legislators and/or enforces are the privileged class, so constitutionalism always involves this sort of garbage! It's not an abuse of constitutionalism; it's an essential part of what constitutionalism is.

As long as humans are humans, cops will not give tickets to cops. Once you fully appreciate that, you'll realize that the police force itself can't exist, because inherent in its nature is a class of people for whom the rules don't work the same way.

Yes, what I said *is* what absolute freedom for an individual means...

The "freedom to murder" is a contradiction in terms. If you believe otherwise, you need to fix your notion of "freedom".

*Just* freedom, on the other hand, is what you have when the 'freedom to oppress' is checked by the 'freedom to punish rights infringement'.

That's why you need to fix up your understanding of freedom: your misunderstanding involves you in all sorts of logical contradictions. For example, you believe that freedom has limits--other than the inherent limitation, that freedom doesn't include the power to take others' freedom. From this I can easily see that you believe, for example, that the right of free speecahs limits. You are wrong.

BTW, I'm absolutely begging you to quote Holmes, that we "have no right to shout fire in a movie theater." If that wasn't your first reaction, I'll be disappointed. I'm hoping you throw it at me. This paragraph is a friendly warning, so when you walk right into my trap, you can't say I wasn't fair about it.

Once you get one single curious person willing to violate the golden rule for some reason, you need someone else to violate the golden rule.

Dead wrong: self-defense doesn't violate the golden rule. IF you decide to come kill me with a pistol, you will indeed lose your life. But only one of us will have broken the golden rule.

I point out that garbage like government funded natural disaster recovery actually ends up killing more people an wasting more hard-created wealth in the long term....

I agree with you that it does--but the utilitarian argument misses the point. Even if the government program worked exactly as advertised, and did all the wonderful things they claimed it would, it would still be immoral. Stealing is immoral, even if you do proceed to do lots of praiseworthy things with the stolen property.

I'm OK with private charity to help people in both situations (natural disaster and drug recovery), because charity doesn't involve entitlement...

100% agree, except that I'd say that charity doesn't involve theft. The welfare queens, with their sense of entitlement, aren't nearly as guilty as the thieves that write their welfare checks.

Golly gee, so if no one ever steals a car, or does anything else bad ever, everything will be perfect!

That's true, but I didn't assume such a thing. You seem to have amnesia. I still believe people will steal cars. Many of them will be shot dead in the attempt. Result: there will be fewer car thieves than there are today, when they can be quite sure they won't lose their lives, and will usually suffer no consequences at all. But I never suggested that theft would completely disappear.

...if there aren't some organizing principles in place that function decently when these evils happen, there will be demand that will be satisfied very quickly by a tyrant.

You say "organizing principle," but you really mean "police force". In other words, you refuse to defend yourself, and then whine that someone else should come along and defend you. As a FReeper, you should already know that defending you isn't even the job of the police, so of course they aren't going to do it...

I really fail to see how society is improved by your hand-wringing refusal to look after your own defense. But what makes it morally reprehensible, is that you cheerfully accept the only alternative: someone takes over your defense, and with it assumes the unquestioned authority to invade my property, or arrest me, or even shoot me. Frankly, my dear, I'd rather see those who refuse to defend themselves simply perish, than see them get their wished for slavery--and entrap me in it in the process.

"We can kick people out of our club, if they break the rules they agreed to when they joined. You can form a "Fight Club", in which every member consents to have the snot kicked out of him. You can even form a club that plays "paintball" using live ammo--as long as everyone consents to being shot at, and no third parties are exposed to danger."

It took me a while and some time outdoors after reading to realize what you are getting at with this.

You are trying to say that freedom supersedes life and human potential, as evidenced by the fight club or shooting people club. In your mind these freedoms contradict my position on freedom, and force the logically confounded and/or mystical reading.

I disagree, and not because I'm cognitively dissonant; it's actually because I'm *not* cognitively dissonant.

I disagree because I think that for any individual to avoid being a tool of petty fools and posturing tyrants, he (or she) must - MUST - deal with the fact that he (or she) CAN, and absolutely HAS the freedom RIGHT NOW, to be Mr. Self-Destruct, fuck the laws.

YOU can stop eating. You can kill yourself by doing so, or come damn near close to it, just to try.

YOU can go lay on the train tracks at night.

YOU can hang out with junkies and buy shit that will fuck you up FOR EVER.

That is YOUR fucking power. Deal with it. YOU can say, screw it all, I am taking a gun and driving to the forest and bringing my buddies and we are going to play "paint" ball. With goddamned real bullets. Go fucking do it. You think forest ranger man is going to find you?

Senator Kennedy cannot freaking stop that without putting you in a cage. He CAN NOT stop you if you want to do it RIGHT NOW. And if he puts you in a cage? You've got a three pound universe in your skull he can never control without YOUR permission. He can stick ice picks in it, he can destroy it, HE CANNOT CONTORL IT WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. DON'T FUCKING GIVE THEM THAT PERMISSION. You give them that permission, 1984's boot stamps on a human face. For-fucking-EVER. Is this clear?

This was the ONLY thing that could have saved Winston Smith. Gandhi knew it. Someone can torture me, and I'll feel pain. Boo-freakin-hoo. Someone can kill me; he'll get a goddamned pile of bones. Someone hijacks my brain and my potency ONLY with MY permission. Fucking period.

This is the source of real freedom. This is the source of individual power. This is the source of anything that differentiates an individual human being from a stick used by a chimp to pick at grubs.

You will be NOTHING other than a stick for a chimp in a suit, or pile of bones, if you don't deal with this. Take the fucking gun, go to the fucking forest, load the damn thing, Ted Kennedy WILL NOT stop you, this is NOT about Senator Kennedy, he is beside the point, he is a chimp in a suit, put the damn thing to you head, and make it all YOUR decision.

The first amendment comes before the second for a damned good reason. A man with a gun and a hijacked brain is someone else's tool. A man with own damn brain is the source of any freedom, power, or human life that can last more than two minutes.

It is like we're living in a book. You get that three pound page in your head. You write that page. The book starts with the big bang, it ends with entropy. But that is YOUR page - and your culture and your inheritance are your ink. Everything more than chimps starts from fucking THERE. OWN THAT. Before you give half a care about property rights or even gun rights, OWN THAT PAGE. For the rest of the time, this moment on, that that page always *will have* existed, WRITE IT YOURSELF.

Or don't. You're free not to. Take your brain-breaking, irrational, confounded definition of freedom, that says the word 'freedom' in "freedom to kill yourself" is somehow, magically, inherently fundamentally different from 'freedom' in "freedom to kill someone else and go unpunished" and let nuts use fear to break your brain into shards. That's your choice; scream 2+2=5 at the top of your lungs for all I care, while cowering in the corner from big bad forest ranger guy, who might interfere with your "paint" ball. Just don't confuse my 2+2=4 for an infringement on your property.

Chapter 1, THE EPISTLE TO THE PARANOIDS

--Lord Omar

1. Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear--and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM!

2. Ye have cast out yer brothers for devils and now complain ye, lamenting that ye've been left to fight alone.

3. All Chaos was once yer kingdom; verily, held ye dominion over the entire Pentaverse, but today ye was sore afraid in dark corners, nooks, and sink holes.

4. O how the darknesses do crowd up, one against the other, in ye hearts! What fear ye more that what ye have wroughten?

5. Verily, verily I say unto you, not all the Sinister Ministers of the Bavarian Illuminati, working together in multitudes, could so entwine the land with tribulation as have yer baseless warnings.

"Because the coming of Messiah is very near."

My understanding is that the book from which this comes both says that (1) the Messiah will come back in the generation that lived at the time of the crucification, and (2) no one knows when the Messiah will come back.

This is one of the reasons I don't take as hard fact all the material in that book.

"On the contrary, I keep saying plain as day that you keep insisting on the need for "structure", where that value-neutral term almost certainly means that there must exist a hierarchy of the sort usually called "government"."

Discussed previously. All structure requires government. Not all government is oppressive. Humans governing other humans (even by punishing them for rights infringement) is oppressive. Not all oppression is bad - in fact, oppression of rights-infringers is ultimately good. Think about your words for a moment. They mean differently than what you wish them to mean.

"If you believe that taxation is not theft,"

Taxation is theft. Service fees are not, as long as you can decline the service.

"IF humans ever achieve true civilization, if will not involve any adult human initiating force on any other adult human for any reason whatsoever."

It will involve adult humans reacting to initiation of force with punishment. That induces structure, and is thus a type of government.

"But to the extent that you condone his crimes, you are indeed part of the problem. You're essentially an unindicted co-conspirator."

If I'm not actually doing something to help the government, and if I'm not actually in a position where the government can rely on me to do something in a pinch, I'm not a co-conspirator. The only reason to say so, unless you are absolutely clear that you won't physically injure me or my property either way, and unless you keep it absolutely clear in all your communications that you are not classifying me with people against whom you consider force justified, is to scare me and other people into joining your side.

"No; you're experiencing the difficulty that I described above. Namely, you can't really accept the concept that "rulership" itself is not necessary."

Incorrect. Rulership is necessary for anything other than random movement of particles. Don't confound this with rulership of humans over other humans.

"'Government, as a broad principle, creates patterns by way of standards.

Your flowery language seems to help you dodge the hard reality. "Government" is a bunch of people who can take our stuff, whether we like it or not, and can use whatever level of force against our persons that they deem necessary for their own ends. When the Mafia does it, it's organized crime. When a man in a dark suit does it, you believe he's entitled."

It is not flowery, it is technical. "Government" is not the problem. It is not even what you seem to be saying the problem is, though your use of words does not make that clear. Forcible human government of other humans, using a means other than punishment for rights infringement, is what you have a problem with. That's fine, but you are advocating a form of unwritten constitutionalism. That's fine, but there is still government involved. Think technically.

"Of course people will try. However, you will shoot them. Problem solved. Crime will exist, but it will be much rarer than it is today."

This is government. Humans punishing other humans for rights infringement, and only for rights infringement, is still government, because 'government' is a broad term. You have to qualify the term 'government' with a term like 'unjust' or something to get it to mean what you seem to want it to mean.

"Exactly! They can comprehend the simple equation: "Trade benefits us both. Stealing will get my @ss shot. Hmmm.... Lemme think about this one..."

Yes, of course. This is a kind of government. It is a type of unwritten constitutionalism. People, on the whole, voluntarily act according to rules, because it is in their benefit, and they can understand this, with some education. Those rules still exist, even if unwritten.

"'Victims are sometimes their own victimizers, so I'm not sure that any society can virtually eliminate victimizers.'

Civilization doesn't eliminate every negative aspect of humanity. If a man victimizes himself, then both parties are consenting to the transaction. There's not much that "society" can do about it. Nor should we try! Your reasoning is precisely that of the folks who would ban smoking, or fatty foods... as soon as you decide that someone should force me to do X, for my own good, you're demonstrating that you've only recently swung down from the tree branches and started walking upright."

This was my point. My point was that tyrants are what I'm interested in getting rid of, and I was unclear as to why you used the word 'victimizers' instead of 'tyrants'. I found it suspicious, and noted it for that reason. I said "not so sure" because for all I know, when individuals have much more power over their own lives, it might drastically reduce their willingness to self-victimize. Who knows. But at any rate, of course that is the individual's own business - you just get a gigantic mess if you start giving his neighbors power to interfere with his right to self-victimization.

"As I said, "freedom" never includes the right to initiate force against someone else. You don't need to specifically mention such an exclusion, except perhaps in grammar school, when teaching the kiddies about freedom."

Your words mean other than you wish them to mean. "Human Liberty" in the political sphere is a term loaded with both ideas about lack of constraints (freedom) and ideas about moral good.

You think it is good for people to have the freedom to kill themselves and bake bread and trade hogs and so on. You think it is bad for people to have the freedom to kill other people and break into their homes. I agree. However, these are moral judgments. You can't just swipe them under how you use the term 'freedom' and be done with it. It is wrong when these are swept under the rug in grammar school, it is worse when adults don't realize there has been a sweeping under the rug.

"True--but that's equally true today."

My whole point was that it is relevant today - thus the comment about "twin gods of pain elimination and stopping evolution".

I basically agree with the rest, about police and security companies. They do lots of bad. The only way that will stop, is for people to know about it, and to pressure government to change for the better, or wait for government to collapse.

"In other words, it's OK with you that they have the authority to take your property, tax your money, and arrest or shoot you, because you feel trustful that they won't use those powers in ways that you object to (very much). It's touching that you have this level of trust. If I don't share it, am I allowed to opt out? If I can opt out, then I wish you the best of luck with this "government" thing of yours. If I can't, then you are approving the use of force against me."

NO NO NO that is not what I mean, is this a farce? It is because I recognize that the word 'government' has a meaning other than that I wish it to have for the moment! You have to qualify the word to get it to mean 'governing of humans over humans' (oppression of some humans by others)! You have to qualify it further to mean 'governing of humans over humans through through some means other than the punishing of rights infringers' (unjustifiable oppression).

I think we agree more than we would know for the sake of term usage.

I think a lot of the places where I had guessed in you something very nefarious it was over term usage issues and nothing worse. I'm sorry about the weird fight club post, if it was off mark - for confusion over terms, I had judged you for a death-wish anarchist, I know many such folks IRL, they are all obsessed with Fight Club, and I really have a strong problem with their beliefs. I have a HUGE problem with their beliefs. If you are not of this sort, and now I'm really thinking you are not, I'm sorry for even the suggestion that you might be. I was led to it by your use of terms.

I'm just going to stop here because I agree with your sentiments in the above quote paragraph, and will in fact bold it for emphasis. It is not good to trust a government that can break into your home and steal your children, etc.. It is not good to have a government which can break into your home and steal your children, etc. We mainly seem to be using terms totally differently from each other. It doesn't seem to be useful.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.