Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
That's wrong too. Very often I make a choice after careful consideration of the consequences...
True, but even a monkey knows not to take the alpha-male's banana because he doesn't like being savagely bitten. Ultimately, every choice boils down to a purely subjective preference concerning expected outcomes. You think A will make you happier than B, so you choose A.
The choice itself is non-rational. "A" might be, "do a rain dance," and you might indeed have reasoned to yourself that a rain dance will bring rain, which will bring crops, which will bring wealth, which will bring women flocking round--so in your mind, "do a rain dance" is equivalent to "get lots of women." But however you might rationalize the significance of "A", you pick it because you want to.
Since it is both rational and a choice what else should one call it but a rational choice?
Thinking was in there somewhere, but not in the act of choosing itself. This is in fact important, because everyone who speaks of "rational choices" invariably commits the same fallacy. Namely, they proceed to equivocate between "logical" and "sane" as meanings of "rational," and characterize people as insane whose choices they don't like. This in turn becomes the justification for focibly overriding their choices.
Indeed, that's the argument you're trying to build. You want to say we need government to protect people from their irrational choices, where the plausibility of the argument comes from reading "irrational" to mean "insane". Throw in a pinch of elitism, and we'll readily swallow the implication that everyone in the world (except me) is insane, and needs a government keeper. Bake at 250, and voila! Statist soufflé!
If you try to give an example of the "irrational" choices that justify forcible government intervention, you'll see that I've anticipated your argument precisely.
My reply is not to claim that the man who freely chooses suicide, or self-mutilation, or what have you, is "sane". Rather, my reply is to deny that the man who chooses to wear a suit and go to work is any more "sane"; you just think so, because he's acting so much like you. But ultimately he's just doing what he wishes to do.
Right here. Search for "Pennsylvania."
Will it tell me what happened? Why the good people of the colony decided in the end to form a government?
The didn't "decide to form a government." Throughout the period of "anarchy," William Penn was fit to be tied. He considered himself the feudal lord of Pennsylvania, and tried everything he could think of to bring them under his thumb and force them to pay quitrents.
He finally succeeded, be means of illegal strategies. What ultimately worked was to bribe the inactive council by promising them power. Penn's appointed governor offered the council authority to make certain types of laws discriminatory against non-quakers, such as denying the vote for council members to insufficiently-landed persons (the quakers were in general the richest folks in PA). The council found the call of power irresistable, so they recompensed the governor by approving his requested taxes payable to Wm. Penn.
In other words, setting up a (functional) government was the decision of the folks who would thereby end up in power. They realized that by throwing their weight around they could make out like, well, bandits.
"-- Will it tell me what happened? Why the good people of the colony decided in the end to form a government? --"
Izzy denies historical fact:
The didn't "decide to form a government."
The Quaker "anarchy" rebellion didn't work, nor did Penn's royal dictatorship, -- but the next rebellion did succeed.
In other words, setting up a (functional) government was the decision of the folks who would thereby end up in power.
Yes izzy, -- government of the people, by the people...
Our constitutional 'social contract' is working, even though you can't [or won't] admit it.
"Self-ownership"
I believe self-ownership is a contradiction in terms from which nothing else follows including your words.
"Very wordy, but missing the point."
I've repeatedly repeated the point and you complain about the repetition.
"Self-defense isn't homicide, "
Self-defense can be homicide. (When you made your "fiery vengeance" comment, it didn't occur to me that you meant lashing with a wet noodle dipped in hot sauce.) Homicide is the killing of one human being by another. If one human being kills another in self-defense that's excusable homicide. To me, you seem more inclined to murder.
"the medieval custom (which is in fact far more ancient than that)"
I already knew that. I didn't think you knew anything about it based on your hillbilly comment.
I'd be fascinated to know why you thought that. Further, I'd be interested to know: if I don't own myself, who does own me?
s/homicide/murder/
I didn't think you knew anything about it based on your hillbilly comment.
You now claim your family would be avenging your murder. But since you were killed in self-defense, there's no murder to avenge. You're confused.
Remember that to rebut your “smash” I don’t have to prove that what you tried to smash was correct. All I have to do is demonstrate your “smash” was incorrect.
KrisKrinkle wrote as one definition of Social contract: an actual or hypothetical contract providing the legitimate basis of sovereignty and civil society and of the rights and duties constituting the role of citizen. The contract can be agreed between people and a proposed sovereign or among the people themselves.
Shalom Israel wrote that KrisKrinkle wrote:
Smash these: an actual or hypothetical contract providing the legitimate basis of sovereignty and civil society and of the rights and duties constituting the role of citizen... Shalom Israel then wrote: OK, this definition explicitly says a social contract is a contract. A contract, in turn, is "An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party." This is contradictory, because the citizen does not in fact exchange any promises. The definition is also faulty on the grounds that there's no such thing as a "hypothetical" agreement. How do two people "hypothetically" agree? Kriskrinkle responds:
"OK, this definition explicitly says a social contract is a contract. "
True but not a “smash.”
"A contract, in turn, is 'An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party.'"
That’s one definition of a contract, in particular a bilateral contract , but I'd venture it is a definition you chose because you thought it would be easy to “smash” (see Notes below).
"This is contradictory, because the citizen does not in fact exchange any promises."
That's part of your “smash” based on your pick of a definition of a contract you could easily “smash”.
Note also that your reference to what I wrote is significantly incomplete (as references sometimes are).
What I wrote states the contract can be agreed between people and a proposed sovereign or among the people themselves, not using the term "citizen" in the in that regard. That it is possible for people to exchange promises with a sovereign or among themselves should be obvious (although you will probably deny it). That leaves the question of whether or not they actually do so. In answer:
Feudalism
A series of contractual relationships between the upper classes, designed to maintain control over land.
Feudalism flourished between the tenth and thirteenth centuries in western Europe. At its core, it was an agreement between a lord and a vassal. A person became a vassal by pledging political allegiance and providing military, political, and financial service to a lord. A lord possessed complete sovereignty over land, or acted in the service of another sovereign, usually a king. If a lord acted in the service of a king, the lord was considered a vassal of the king.
As part of the feudal agreement, the lord promised to protect the vassal and provided the vassal with a plot of land. This land could be passed on to the vassal's heirs, giving the vassal tenure over the land. The vassal was also vested with the power to lease the land to others for profit, a practice known as subinfeudation. The entire agreement was called a fief, and a lord's collection of fiefs was called a fiefdom.
The feudal bond was thus a combination of two key elements: fealty, or an oath of allegiance and pledge of service to the lord, and homage, or an acknowledgment by the lord of the vassal's tenure. The arrangement was not forced on the vassal; it was profitable for the vassal and made on mutual consent, and it fostered the allegiance necessary for royal control of distant lands.
The bond between a lord and a vassal was made in a ceremony that served to solemnize the fief.
(Excerpted From: Legal Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale)
So, people actually have exchanged such promises. Your “smash” so far is rebutted.
You further your “smash” with: "The definition is also faulty on the grounds that there's no such thing as a "hypothetical" agreement."
Kriskrinkle actually wrote "an actual or hypothetical contract" nevertheless:
Hypothetical means of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. A hypothesis is:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something .
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
So the words "an actual or hypothetical contract" are a shortened version of "an actual contract or a contract that is a tentative explanation for an observation that can be tested by further investigation or a contract taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
In other words there can be a hypothetical contract or agreement. Your “smash” so far is still rebutted..
"How do two people "hypothetically" agree?"
A misconstruction on your part given the explanation preceding your question.
Notes:
Bilateral Contract
An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party. (Excerpted From: Legal Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale)
Excerpted from the same source:
Contracts
Agreements between two or more persons that create an obligation to do, or refrain from doing, a particular thing.
The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in good faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it.
(Remember these are excerpts. There is a lot of other stuff there, but most of it is legal stuff that probably wouldn't exist under Shalom Israel rules.)
A more appropriate definition of contract than the one Shalom Israel used would be:
A contract is an agreement between two or more persons that creates an obligation to do, or refrain from doing a particular thing.
Now, Shalom Israel, I don't know for certain, but I could likely rebut all your "smashes" the same as I've done here. However, I have no intention of making the effort. (It's not that it's hard but it's tedious.) I'm pretty well done and I'm outta here.
May you live long enough to learn.
I'm sure people have. What does that have to do with the fact that you claim I'm bound by this contract, even though I didn't exchange any such promise?
"I'd be fascinated to know why you thought that."
I told you at 499, you disagreed at 504.
Your 567 makes less sense than usual.
You've read my 568 by now, I've got other things to do, Bye.
Faulty reasoning, easily dismissed. I hope you didn't work too hard at it. You've seen my #569 by now I assume.
Agreements between two or more persons that create an obligation to do, or refrain from doing, a particular thing.
The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in good faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it.
Kris notes:
So, people actually have exchanged such promises. Your "smash" so far is rebutted.
Izzy replies:
I'm sure people have.
What does that have to do with the fact that you claim I'm bound by this contract, even though I didn't exchange any such promise?
Round you go again izzy, in full circle.
You admit that 'we the people' formed a contract, but deny that you are bound to our Constitutional contract by accepting citizenship and living in this country. -- That thus you have 'exchanged a promise' to live by our contracts rule of law.
No one has forced you to live in the USA as an adult. -- This is a fact you cannot deny.
Learn to read. I said I'm sure some people entered an actual contract with the government--for example, those joining the armed forces (arguably) have done so. However, that only binds the actual people that made an actual contract. There's no such thing as "we the people" in the sense that you keep harping on.
Your ignorant rantings are rather tiresome.
You admit that 'we the people' formed a contract, but deny that you are bound to our Constitutional contract by accepting citizenship and living in this country. -- That thus you have 'exchanged a promise' to live by our contracts rule of law.
No one has forced you to live in the USA as an adult. -- This is a fact you cannot deny.
I said I'm sure some people entered an actual contract with the government--for example, those joining the armed forces (arguably) have done so.
However, that only binds the actual people that made an actual contract.
By living in the USA izzy, you have indisputably agreed to live by our Constitutional contracts rule of law.
There's no such thing as "we the people" in the sense that you keep harping on.
You deny that our preamble's "We the People" exist? - Incredible.
"Your ignorant rantings are rather tiresome." - Give it up.
Since these experiments failed so quickly, I don't think it's reasonable of you to claim them as evidence that people will be better off with anarchy than some government.
In fact, int the Pennsylvania case, I think one of two things are likely. Either most folks willingly joined in accepting the government or a minority insisted and the majority could not organize to resist. Both argue against your case.
Now, back to another of your points. You said
You doubt it, but it happens to be precisely true. Observe that monkeys have hierarchy. It's hardly a human invention. A non-sentient being needs a herd instinct to survive, because cooperation is indeed necessary for survival.Well, you completely missed the point in several ways here. First, contrary to your implication, I was doubting that people in the aggregate would continue to do something very bad for them, as you suggest government is, for many millenia. I observe that people are very smart and have been for tens of thousands of years. If anarachy were actually better for people than government, I suspect that by now anarchy would be a prevalent social form.
Second, I was specifically *not* suggesting that people *don't* have a tendency toward hierarchy. As you note, this is an evolved social trait and people have it too.
Third, since many species get along fine without them, I'd say neither hierarchy nor cooperation are obviously essential traits for survival. I suspect though that they do significantly improve fitness and also that they are socially beneficial.
Fourth, you argue against yourself somewhat. I'd say government clearly increases cooperation compared to many small hierarchies (note that I am arguing *rationally* by analogy of humans with apes and monkeys). I'd also argue that anarchy *decreases* cooperation compared to many small hierarchies. If cooperation were an essential survival trait, and supposing you agree people are better off alive than dead, doesn't govenrment clearly have a social benefit relative to anarchy?
Yes, but exactly what sort of failure? In each case, failure was the result of individuals' scheming to get power for themselves. That's the fundamental fact of human nature we're facing: not only will G-men come after you if you defy today's government, but if government disappeared, men would promptly set about creating one--precisely because it's such a great racket for the fellows at the top.
or a minority insisted and the majority could not organize to resist. Both argue against your case. That's exactly what happened--but how does that "argue against my case"? I've said all along that lack of government is better, but that humans are such unevolved herd animals that the masses would refuse to live like that. They're to frightened, if the alpha male isn't there to tell them what to do.
First, contrary to your implication, I was doubting that people in the aggregate would continue to do something very bad for them, as you suggest government is, for many millenia.
You didn't suppor this claim of yours. I claim the opposite, and support it thus: apes evolved cooperative behavior, because cooperation provides a competitive advantage. However, in small family units, that "cooperation" is essentially socialistic. Thus humans evolved as socialistic herd animals, and they retain their herd instincts to this day. Thus they don't choose self-government because it's contrary to their genetic programming.
There are any number of examples where intellect can improve on nature, but that doesn't mean nature cooperates.
Second, I was specifically *not* suggesting that people *don't* have a tendency toward hierarchy. As you note, this is an evolved social trait and people have it too.
That's what makes anarchy essentially impossible today, as I've said before.
You're correct that I have whatever human baggage you do. However, humans can overcome instinct with reason--for example, someone afraid of heights can nevertheless motivate himself to bail out of an airplane. At the same time, most humans do not overcome their instincts.
So one way of looking at it is that humans will adopt anarchy when they evolve sufficient intelligence for the majority to leave behind animal instincts. Then again, there's no reason to believe that humans ever will evolve enough intelligence.
I'd say government clearly increases cooperation compared to many small hierarchies...
That's possible but by no means obvious. In the world we have an anarchistic system running in parallel with governments, called the "free market". That market is imperfect, because government interferes in it frequently, but it's essentially anarchistic. And whenever it goes head-to-head with government, it kick's government's @ss. After hurricane Katrina, for example, WalMart's response to the disaster put Fema's to shame.
If cooperation were an essential survival trait, and supposing you agree people are better off alive than dead, doesn't govenrment clearly have a social benefit relative to anarchy?
That's an excellent question! My suggested answer is that evolution doesn't pick the "best" solution; it picks any solution that works. "Cooperation" is a survival trait, but that doesn't mean that evolution picks the best possible form of cooperation. The tyranny of the alpha male is "better" than trying to survive all by yourself, but there are much better ways.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't about not cooperating; it's about all cooperation being voluntary.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't about not cooperating; it's about all cooperation being voluntary.
Our Constitution is a voluntary contract izzy. No one is forcing you to stay in the USA to honor it.
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.