NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/can/politics/11566

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 8.4 KB | 194 lines

Xref: sparky can.politics:11566 talk.politics.theory:5696
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!cmk
From: [e-mail] (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <XGk=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:54:42 GMT
Lines: 180

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>I wrote:
>>>If such a thing is
>>>impossible (as you say), then there are no legitimate governments --
>>>not even yours, since someone in your country is morally outraged by
>>>the objectivist basis in your government.
>>
>[e-mail] (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>you are using *your* definitions to assess "my" system. i never for one
>>minute claimed that no-one would be "outraged" by my system.
>
>You're right, I apologize.

no prob. thanks for being decent enough a debator to do so. rare indeed.

>>>Where no consensus can be achieved, no _legitimate_ government is
>>>possible.
>>
>>only based on your relativist definitions. did you ever consider
>>that if no legitimate government is possible based on your ideas,
>>that maybe it is your *definitions* that are unreasonable? unless
>
>But here you are doing the same thing to me.  _You're_ the one that
>says consensus can _never be achieved anywhere_.  Only if you're
>right will my definition be useless.  I think you're wrong.

ok, then let's discuss that. we started in on it earlier, but never
really got very far. i claim the beginning position of common sense --
it *seems* unlikely, absent proof, that 100 million people can reach
a consensus on an important issue. what makes you think consensus
is possible?

btw, "never achieved anywhere" is too strong a standard for me. i
need only to show that it can be achieved extremely rarely in order
to paralyze your government.

>>>It does no such thing.  The minority can be offended as easily as the
>>>majority.  Once again you are using the notion of majoritarianism to
>>>assign my system properties it doesn't have.
>>
>>well, i have to use common sense to assign your system properties
>>since you refuse to. you deleted the entire issue in my previous post
>>about how to measure "offense" or "common will". as such, you continue
>
>I deleted your previous stuff on "common will" because it presupposed
>the very thing you were trying to prove -- that there is no consensus
>possible.  Frankly, I found it a darn sight less intelligent than
>your usual arguments.

well, thanks (i guess? :^)

i'm not sure that it did what you say. i gave an example, where i
gave a potential breakdown of popular opinion, and simply asked how
you would deal with it. if you believe in the possibility of consensus,
how would people get from their starting opinions to consensus?
(you mention "weak consensus" below). so how does this happen?

i have never seen any important issue that did not break down into
some popular opinion situation similar to that one. again, if they
took a poll and 100% felt the same way, there would be no issue at all.

>>to use a utopian definition of government which allows you to say
>>"it does no such thing" and "well, then that is illegitimate" to
>>every objection raised. so again, if not "majority rule", then what?
>
>Then _NOTHING_.  I've said this several times, and you ignore it.
>
>I have not defined government -- I take that as a given.  I have said
>what conditions have to hold for a government to be considered
>legitimate.  That condition in no way relies on any comparison
>between groups -- it only relies on individual decisions taken in a
>group context.  _Each individual decides for themself_.

we are really not communicating here, and my less-than-totally-patient
attitude in my last post is at least partially to blame. it *seemed*
to me that you were trying to avoid my objection to your system, when
maybe i have just not explained it well enough. so i will try again.

your system is based on each person "deciding for himself", as you
say above. furthermore, government can only act if "no-one finds
offense" in its actions. i claim this is not possible; you claim it
is. so maybe we should focus on that. more further down.

>>there are only two choices under your definition:
>>
>>1. [Paralysis]
>>2. [Oppression]
>
>3. Consensus.  Just because you believe that it is impossible does
>not make it so.
>
>Note, all I require is a weak consensus -- agreement to abide by some
>conflict-resolution mechanism.  That the losers be "good losers".  Not
>that they abandon their beliefs, but that they accept the rules of the
>fight and wait for the next round.

this seems like at least a bit of backing-off from your previous
definition of "consensus", but let's not bother with that.

the definition of "consensus" is a problem here.
first, a weak consensus of this
sort does not rule out "offense" by anybody. second, why should
people be "good losers"? what if they have been good losers for
a while, and they keep being good losers (which happens often)?
third, if 50% feel one way, and 50% the other way, why should one
give in rather than insisting the other do so? wars get started that
way...

why are you so confident consensus would work? people don't get along!

and when you tried to explain the "conflict-resolution mechanism"
last time, you ended up with a recursive definition which required
the use of the conflict-resolution mechanism to set itself up.

>we have been down this road before. again, the definitions do not
>>make much sense because they are based on an ill-defined concept and
>>become highly recursive in nature.
>
>"Common will" is not ill-defined -- it is an agreement to abide by
>certain decisions made by a group.  That it's difficult to achieve
>(if it truly is) is not a problem with its definition.

well, you called it "ill-defined" yourself, in an earlier post.
and i say it *is* ill-defined, because acquiescence does not
imply will.

>"Highly recursive" is not a valid objection to a definition:  the
>fibonacci sequence is well-defined and thoroughly recursive.

it is recursive, but all good recursive subroutines or arguments
have a grounding point. in the case of fibonacci, it is:

   f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2)    [recursive function]
   f(0) = 0; f(1) = 1        [boundary conditions]

my objection is that i don't see the terminating point in your
arguments. the "conflict-resolution mechanism" problem above
is one example.

>>so what? you have been repeating these claims for weeks. you are entitled
>>to your opinion, but you're not going to convince me if you can't
>>even resolve the inherent inability of your system to do what it relies
>>on: measuring "common will".
>
>You do not need to measure your centre of balance to ride a bike.  All
>you need is a sense of balance and the ability to pull the bike back
>underneath you.  If you tip the bike too far to one side, you'll find
>out about it soon enough.
>
>I've said this before, and I'm saying it again:  each person decides for
>themself whether they will bend to the will of their neighbours.  Each
>failure of the individual to bend is a straw placed on the camel's back.
>When the back breaks is a function of the number of straws and the strength
>of the camel's back.

not good enough, i'm afraid. how do we measure "camels' backs breaking?"
how do we know when this happens?

what happens if we propose X and "the camel's back breaks", and when
we withdraw X it happens again? what do we do? i proposed this situation
before, and in my opinion, this is how things really work.

>>>On the other hand, I have some pretty strong moral principles about
>>>how people should be treated, and I would find morally reprehensible
>>>governments that violated those principles.  But my opinion is worth
>>>exactly as much as my neighbour's in my system.
>>
>>classic collectivist relativism. two choices: paralysis or oppression.
>>
>I don't believe you.  Since that's what this argument has come to (and
>because you don't seem to be enjoying it any more), I guess that'll
>just have to be the end of it.

well, i apologize for my lack of patience. i just get frustrated sometimes.

tell me how this third option is feasible (consensus), based on
some of the objections and problem examples i outlined above.

--
charles