Connecticut (et al)

[pErvinalia]

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Bollocks. It would suit me personally to do a lot of things, but I don't do many of them, and not because they're illegal. There's such a thing as discipline and self-restraint in the interest of the common good.

Everything you do is done to satisfy some internal need you have, therefore everything you do is based on what's best for you.

It matters not a whit that your internal need is to be a good socialist and act "in the interest of the common good," you still do it because it satisfies YOUR internal needs for conformity or something else. That it happens to be in the interests of the common good is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's important is your internal motivations, which are entirely selfish in nature and origin.

When the term "selfishness" is used, it's not used in the sense you are using it here - that is, everyone's primary behavioural goals are focused on the 'self'. It's used to mean the distinction between people who's actions benefit only themselves (more or less), as opposed to people who's actions also greatly benefit others.

No, that's how YOU would like things to be. But they are not. You don't get to define terms. I'm speaking of the core motivation for every human act, which is intrinsically selfish.

It is, and that can lead to altruism etc. The point is that when people say LIbertarianism is a selfish ideology and socialism isn't, they don't say that because Socialists don't have the same internally selfish motivation. They say that because the outcomes/outward-actions are selfish.

[pErvinalia]

He's not exactly making that claim, though. What he claims is that every person has a inherent right to defend their life. I presume this belief stems from the fact that evolution selects broadly for life, not death. Now, I have an argument with people all the time about this issue, and I make the point that it is not a naturalistic fallacy to consider life better than death. The problem with Seth's argument is that this doesn't really mean much. Sure, I might be able to make a case that I should be able to do whatever I like to preserve my life, but rights aren't just proclamations. They need to be underwritten for them to become an actual right. A right, without expectation of actually being able to reasonably experience that right, isn't a right at all. It's just an empty statement. That's what Seth does. Without society to underwrite rights, there are none.

No, they don't have to be underwritten, they just have to be successfully defended. It matters little who or how rights are defended. If you and I are on a desert island and there's only one cocoanut for food, the right to that cocoanut as food belongs to whomever has the ability to defend that claim successfully.

Society is merely a more complex and less violent way of resolving ownership and possession of the resources necessary for life. We use lawyers and courts as our proxies for single combat. But the nature of the right doesn't change. A right is a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by others. It doesn't require "underwriters", although society does so underwright the enforcement of rights in a complex society. The right exists independent of the society however, and is formed by the individual's claim of freedom of action and his ability to defend it against intrusion by others.

But that is all essentially meaningless, as an individual (or a small group of them) doesn't have the "ability to defend that claim successfully". As Beatsong and I have pointed out before you take contradictory stances depending on what point you argued. You would be better sticking with your "moral right" to property regardless of whether you can defend it or not, than the "might is right" moral principle. Either way, you can't adopt BOTH as a logically coherent philosophy a the same time.

[MrJonno]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Actually democracy is a 1000 sheep all getting together, forming a nation of sheep and stopping a couple of wolves picking the of one by one. a 1000 organised sheep beats one nasty wolf

In other words democracy exists to protect the majority of people from libertarians, thank god I do live in a democracy

[Coito ergo sum]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Actually democracy is a 1000 sheep all getting together, forming a nation of sheep and stopping a couple of wolves picking the of one by one. a 1000 organised sheep beats one nasty wolf

In other words democracy exists to protect the majority of people from libertarians, thank god I do live in a democracy

Democracy is wonderful, but like most anything in its pure, undiluted form, it tends to be dangerous.

The popular will, like other aspects of government, needs a check and balance, which is why neither your country nor mine is a pure democracy. There is a place for individual autonomy to trump the majority will. Like, who people marry and procreate with -- it may well be in the State interest to have genetic bonds managed in a scientific manner to maximize intelligence, resistance to disease, mental stability, and physical fitness, etc. But, the idea that who, when, why, where and how a person fucks is not subject to majority vote exemplifies why individual liberty balanced against democracy is important.

Taking the sheep example to illustrate -- yes, democracy let's the sheep protect themselves from a few wolves. But, it also let's them vote against the black sheep. What protects the black sheep is individual liberty -- areas of life which are free from the majority sheep vote.

[MrJonno]

The popular will, like other aspects of government, needs a check and balance, which is why neither your country nor mine is a pure democracy

This is where there is a diversity of the English language between the US and the UK.

Democracy is rule by the people, now the people could be a single people's party dictatorship but generally it means electing representatives to run things. Ultimately the people lend power to government (and once its lent you no longer have it) and at election you get it given back to lend out again. If the 'people' really had power at times they could break any law they feel like.

'Pure democracy' is a made up and poorly defined term, I assume its something to do with referendums on any issue but as I've never seen anyone define a democracy pure or otherwise as such so its meaningless.

Ultimatley the British people can elect parliament to do absolutely anything, they can pass laws rounding up anyone with ginger hair and shooting them. There is nothing in the British system preventing this and nor is there a need to. If the British people want to round up ginger people then they are the problem not government.

There are procedures that make it a slow process such a law, could take a year or so and would break international law and in the case of the EU genuine sanctions but it can be done.

We arent a 'pure' democracy' for a reason that is nothing to do with electoral systems but due to having an inherited head of state (ie we arent a republic).

[Coito ergo sum]

The popular will, like other aspects of government, needs a check and balance, which is why neither your country nor mine is a pure democracy

This is where there is a diversity of the English language between the US and the UK.

Democracy is rule by the people, now the people could be a single people's party dictatorship but generally it means electing representatives to run things. Ultimately the people lend power to government (and once its lent you no longer have it) and at election you get it given back to lend out again. If the 'people' really had power at times they could break any law they feel like.

Well, even these evil libertarians generally accept a need for a democratic government of that sort.

'Pure democracy' is a made up and poorly defined term, I assume its something to do with referendums on any issue but as I've never seen anyone define a democracy pure or otherwise as such so its meaningless.

Ultimatley the British people can elect parliament to do absolutely anything, they can pass laws rounding up anyone with ginger hair and shooting them. There is nothing in the British system preventing this and nor is there a need to. If the British people want to round up ginger people then they are the problem not government.

Yes, but to the ginger people, knowing that "the British people are the problem" is not particularly comforting. The idea is not that we know where to cast blame. The idea is knowing that it is possible for a majority to be motivated to round up ginger people and do nasty things to them, prudence would dictate doing one's level best under sober circumstances to set up a system with a check and balance against that power. Nothing can render the possibility of rounding people up impossible -- but, things can be done -- separations of power -- branches of government -- federalism - set forth limitations on government power - codifying of individual liberties.

It makes it just a bit harder for gingers to be rounded up, when a higher concept is codified strongly that people deserve equal protection of the law, and that making such distinctions based on arbitrary classifications is dirty pool, or that arbitrary detentions are dirty pool, etc.

There are procedures that make it a slow process such a law, could take a year or so and would break international law and in the case of the EU genuine sanctions but it can be done.

We arent a 'pure' democracy' for a reason that is nothing to do with electoral systems but due to having an inherited head of state (ie we arent a republic).

But nobody advocates having something other than a democracy or a republic of the kind you discuss. Some of us seem to be a bit more strongly sided with individual autonomy as a check against majority power, though. You seem to think no check is needed, because if a people are such jerks they'd do something so crazy as round up Gingers (or Jews) then it's their own bloody fault. Well, my response to that, as noted above, is nobody really gives a shit about whose fault it would be -- the issue is trying as best as a society can to prevent that shit from happening. Cuz it can.

Now, democracy itself is one good check against such monstrous behavior. Most people are good, and most people wouldn't want to vote for rounding up of Gingers or Jews -- BUT, they can be motivated in that direction, and they can be motivated to vote away the responsibility to single maniac. So, dispersion of power, allocation of power into different hierarchies and different areas so that one or a few crackpots can't take monstrous actions, and preservation of individual autonomy to the greatest extent reasonably possible, helps too.

[MrJonno]

But nobody advocates having something other than a democracy or a republic of the kind you discuss. Some of us seem to be a bit more strongly sided with individual autonomy as a check against majority power, though. You seem to think no check is needed, because if a people are such jerks they'd do something so crazy as round up Gingers (or Jews) then it's their own bloody fault. Well, my response to that, as noted above, is nobody really gives a shit about whose fault it would be -- the issue is trying as best as a society can to prevent that shit from happening. Cuz it can.

Now, democracy itself is one good check against such monstrous behavior. Most people are good, and most people wouldn't want to vote for rounding up of Gingers or Jews -- BUT, they can be motivated in that direction, and they can be motivated to vote away the responsibility to single maniac. So, dispersion of power, allocation of power into different hierarchies and different areas so that one or a few crackpots can't take monstrous actions, and preservation of individual autonomy to the greatest extent reasonably possible, helps too.

I would be all for checks if I actually thought they work, the Weimar republic has the same sort of fluffly everyone is an individual to be respected as person regardless of religion/race etc and it got completely ignored (there were also a stupid amount of military firearms lying around which didnt help either).

If you want to prevent goverment/public mass murder you would probably be better of restricting the press, the education system and people in general for 'hate speech' rather than the government itself. That of course is a very high price to pay and brings in other issues.

In the end of the day I don't believe in bad governments , only bad people who elect and run them. Governments don't kill people people kill people!

[Coito ergo sum]

If you want to prevent goverment/public mass murder you would probably be better of restricting the press, the education system and people in general for 'hate speech' rather than the government itself. That of course is a very high price to pay and brings in other issues.

The evidence of history is all against this. In no place where the press is extremely free do we find rounding up of people by the State. We find it happening by governments who turned off the press (express when it suited them) and defined who to hate.

In the end of the day I don't believe in bad governments , only bad people who elect and run them. Governments don't kill people people kill people!

Certainly -- you're almost there now.

Governments don't kill people, people kill people. Government is a fiction created by people to consolidate power. Power is real. It's that power that must be divided, spread apart, and checked and balanced, and one of the great checks and balances is democracy, coupled with a free press and free people who have individual autonomy.

Nazi Germany could only do what it did by ending freedom of the press -- same with the Soviet Union.

[aspire1670]

If you want to prevent goverment/public mass murder you would probably be better of restricting the press, the education system and people in general for 'hate speech' rather than the government itself. That of course is a very high price to pay and brings in other issues.

The evidence of history is all against this. In no place where the press is extremely free do we find rounding up of people by the State. We find it happening by governments who turned off the press (express when it suited them) and defined who to hate.

Rounding up of Japanese American citizens by US government during WW2.

[MrJonno]

The evidence of history is all against this. In no place where the press is extremely free do we find rounding up of people by the State. We find it happening by governments who turned off the press (express when it suited them) and defined who to hate.

'Evidence' of history is not like scientific evidence its highly subjective.

As far as I'm concerned WW2 occured due to a combination of a highly racist, nationalist people who had been like that for many generations, a failed economy, the loss in WW1 was not a cause except it how it related to a failed economy ie Versailles. with a really rather minor role played by a charasmatic leader (ie if it hadnt been Hitler it would have been someone else).

All countries have restrictions on 'hate speech', its just a case of how much. If you could go back in a time machine how would you have prevented the rise of the Nazis?. The only way I can see it would have been some serious restrictions on extremist politics. Arresting/killing an individual here and there wouldnt have made any difference

[Coito ergo sum]

If you want to prevent goverment/public mass murder you would probably be better of restricting the press, the education system and people in general for 'hate speech' rather than the government itself. That of course is a very high price to pay and brings in other issues.

The evidence of history is all against this. In no place where the press is extremely free do we find rounding up of people by the State. We find it happening by governments who turned off the press (express when it suited them) and defined who to hate.

Rounding up of Japanese American citizens by US government during WW2.

That wasn't wholesale, and the weren't murdered, and just as many Germans were "rounded up" during the war too. It was done because we were at war with those countries -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment But, those are far cries from the holocaust, the purges in the Soviet Union and the Chinese cultural revolution.

But, the point is well taken to this extent -- bad things CAN still happen even in democracies. All the more reason to have a check against majority will.

[Seth]

Seth

There is a genuine pragmatic reason why social welfare is a good thing, that should even suit you. Quite simply, if people become desperate enough, they will come for you and your possessions, and even your broad collection of guns will not keep them out. You do not have eyes in the back of your head, or the ability to go without sleep indefinitely.

When welfare payments are removed (and it has been done in a number of nations), one result is a massive increase in violent crime. A welfare payment is, in fact, a cheap form of insurance.

Well, if that's the case, then it's in my rational self-interest to contribute to the welfare of those who might pose such a risk, isn't it?

The point is that it is *I* who should make the decision about whom I deem to be a risk in that way and what to do about it.

For example, if I'm going to support a poor person, I'm going to support the one that lives next door to me or inhabits the culvert under the highway down the street from me, not some crack addict in Detroit. People in Detroit can deal with their poor all on their own.

And if I prefer to take the risk that some poor person will try to rob me by securing my home and property and arming myself, or hiring someone to guard me while I'm asleep, why that's a decision I get to make as well.

So no, you have not justified involuntary servitude and forcible theft of my labor and property on the bogus notion that I have to submit to extortion by the poor else they will kill me. When someone tries to extort or kill me, I simply shoot back with greater volume, accuracy and tactics...which is exactly why I need 30 to 100 round magazines and 5000 rounds of ammunition for my multiple "semi-automatic assault weapons" and why I will never register them nor surrender them.

[Seth]

One might also call that "protection money" or even "blackmail".

In the law it's called "extortion" and one is authorized to use force against an extortionist in self-defense, which is the only rational response to extortion.

[Seth]

One might also call that "protection money" or even "blackmail".

Perhaps, though that is stretching it. The end result is, however, a better result for society.

No, it's not. All you accomplish by paying an extortionist is more extortion, as we have seen constantly in the last 100 years. The best solution for extortionists is that they die attempting to extort someone. That way they get nothing and other extortionists are put on notice that they attempt to extort people on peril of their lives.

[Coito ergo sum]

The evidence of history is all against this. In no place where the press is extremely free do we find rounding up of people by the State. We find it happening by governments who turned off the press (express when it suited them) and defined who to hate.

'Evidence' of history is not like scientific evidence its highly subjective.

As far as I'm concerned WW2 occured due to a combination of a highly racist, nationalist people who had been like that for many generations, a failed economy, the loss in WW1 was not a cause except it how it related to a failed economy ie Versailles. with a really rather minor role played by a charasmatic leader (ie if it hadnt been Hitler it would have been someone else).

All countries have restrictions on 'hate speech', its just a case of how much. If you could go back in a time machine how would you have prevented the rise of the Nazis?. The only way I can see it would have been some serious restrictions on extremist politics. Arresting/killing an individual here and there wouldnt have made any difference

There isn't a restriction on "hate speech" here in the US as such, and I am very happy about that. ACLU on behalf American Nazi Party v. Skokie Illinois case set a pretty broad constitutional bar. The government was found to be powerless to stop the American Nazi Party from marching down Main Street, Skokie Illinois, a city with a heavily Jewish population (and in particular a large number of holocaust survivors) even if they had signs and yelled racial epithets and hateful remarks about Jews and the holocaust and even if they openly support Nazism, Hitler and the like. That's the law of the land in the US.