My "Political Philosophy"

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally we want the actions to reflect the majority view rather than our own. If the majority want to do something we believe stupid then we want that stupid thing to be done. That's the whole idea of democracy and if we voluntarily take part then we are responsible for a system in which the majority view holds and hence we are responsible for the system acting as the majority want. Arguing our case doesn't change any of that.

Real life is slightly less ideal but the general idea still holds.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I see your point. Given that I had no ability to prevent the actions of the government, it doesnt seem fair to ascribe some repsonsibility to me for those actions.

I think the responsibility we share part of is the selection of the government (that's 1 eleven millionth "my fault"). It seems to me that I shouldnt gain any credit for virtuous acts done by the Howard government (that belongs to the 6 million who voted for them) but nor do I get blame for the bad things they do (as I struggled as hard as I could to prevent them).

Hmm..this appears to just be restating my point above. I guess it boils down to: How is it fair to blame me for something I couldnt prevent?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I see your point. Given that I had no ability to prevent the actions of the government, it doesnt seem fair to ascribe some repsonsibility to me for those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you live in an apartment block with common parts that need repainting. You want decisions about the common parts to be made democratically.

The front door needs repainting and there's a vote on what colour. You vote blue, 93% vote green.

What colour do you want them to the paint the door?

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I see your point. Given that I had no ability to prevent the actions of the government, it doesnt seem fair to ascribe some repsonsibility to me for those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you live in an apartment block with common parts that need repainting. You want decisions about the common parts to be made democratically.

The front door needs repainting and there's a vote on what colour. You vote blue, 93% vote green.

What colour do you want them to the paint the door?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like there's two levels here. I still want them to paint it blue. I also want them to do what we vote for. My two wants contradict each other and the "do the democratic thing" one is at a higher level.

So I want them to paint it blue, but think they should ignore what I want. [/dodge?]

[bunny]

Actually I dont know if I need to dodge. I think the distinction between a 4 person democracy and an 11 million person democracy is important. I have more ability to influence the door-painting (I can even go back and repaint it each night til they give in). In the government case, I really cant - I'm completely unable to affect the invasion of Iraq in any way (whether they do it or not - the most I can do is vote one way or the other and attend protests, right letters, campaign, etcetera) the direct action available to me in the apartment scenario is much more effective. I think this is part of where the analogy breaks down.

(Although, maybe it's just the difference between 1/11000000 and 1/4)

[tame_deuces]

My guess is that those who say that holds an either you are 'for it or against it' view. The truth is a bit more pragmatical though, I doubt you could create any system where an individual at some point doesn't take actions which leads to something he would deem 'wrong'.

For instance if you are a steel-miner, some of your mined steel might end up in a knife that stabs someone to death brutally. If nobody mines steel society seizes to function properly.

If you buy a pair of sneakers you might purchase something produced by child labor and hence support its existence, if everybody boicots it alot of children could be starving since they have no income.

You might support democracy and your state performs actions you do not agree with. You might be a-political and your refusal to take action would make your state continue to do things you don't agree with without anybody protesting and hence create no room for change.

Democracy is the old axiom 'lead, follow or get out of the way'. There are things you can do to influence it, and if you feel you should do so, then do so - the state imbues you with a right and a duty for this. You have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, can hold pretty much the ideals you wish and to some extent it takes care of you. The prize you pay is giving up certain personal freedoms.

What the anarchists of course are protesting about is that you really don't have a choice in the matter. Which is indeed a moral puzzle and it is a legitimate protest. Some of us (like myself) accept this 'imprisonment' as being for the greater good, others (like the ACers) deem it to be an abomination and propose alternate structures for society.

The only 'defence' the state has in this matter is when it is built on equalitarian principles, which basically means everybody has the same rights and hence should in principle be 'oppressed equally'. This is why issues such as discrimination and lack of gender equality amongst some are so incredibly important and needs to be solved in the foreseeable future. And it isn't really much of a defence either, it is more of a pragmatical solution to a genuine problem (which again, some say can be solved without the state).

And of course on an historical basis it also works quite well, the inhabitants of modern democracies will as an average lead longer, more free and easier lives than in any other form of society that has existed thus far. Stress tests and comparisons against existing more 'primitive' forms of society show that individuals in these societies have more worries, more negative stress symptoms etc. etc.

But, maybe most importantly - when you have issues with democracy - you should go out there and attempt to change it with the rights you have given, it is infact your duty as a citizen to do so, or else democracy seizes to function and become nothing but the political tyranny some accuse of it being. The foremost enemies of democracy are apathy and elitisism (the myth of the 'enlightened few' that are more fit to lead and decide etc.).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I see your point. Given that I had no ability to prevent the actions of the government, it doesnt seem fair to ascribe some repsonsibility to me for those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you live in an apartment block with common parts that need repainting. You want decisions about the common parts to be made democratically.

The front door needs repainting and there's a vote on what colour. You vote blue, 93% vote green.

What colour do you want them to the paint the door?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like there's two levels here. I still want them to paint it blue. I also want them to do what we vote for. My two wants contradict each other and the "do the democratic thing" one is at a higher level.

So I want them to paint it blue, but think they should ignore what I want. [/dodge?]

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, although if it was up to you you'd paint it blue and vote blue, the resultant action you want to take place is the will of the majority so at the meta-level you want the door to be painted green. I don't see how you can then say you bear no responsibility for having things done as per your meta-wishes.

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are extremely scared of the state because they wield the power of genocide. In fact, they have enacted genocide thousands of times and continue to do so. And instead of justly recognizing this evil and facing up to power (which when you do, you become an anarchist), you put other people on the defensive, claiming that the market would create these horrors. So the reason that you use this argument is because in your mind it's an incredibly powerful argument when used against *you*.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've missed my point again. I dont think the market creates these horrors, I think these horrors exist and a market has to deal with them as does a state. Which one deals with it better is part of my decision as to which system to support. I think it's naive to think there's a perfect system. I recognise that I may be supporting the worse system, but I also recognise I am not going to jump ship if ACists cant provide at least a hint of how these problems might be solved.

I didnt put you on the defensive, your psychology does that.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you haven't recognized that the problem you raise is embodied precisely in the system you support?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not supporting a system. I think there is a problem of cults wanting to acquire nuclear weapons with us not being able to distinguish when it's for weapons and when it's for some other purpose. Statism addresses this problem the way it addresses all of them - by using force to say "these cults can have them (ie us) and the rest cant". I am curious as to how ACists think the problem may be addressed in an AC society.

It's similar to the way there is a problem with how to deliver healthcare which can be fiendishly expensive to people when it's often the case that they need it when they can least afford it. I know how states say they do it and I've heard ACists speculate on how they think it would happen in AC. Asking "How would it work in AC?" doesnt imply I think the state is better - in fact, I would quite like to be persuaded the market is a better provider, but consider it too high risk to just jump in without at least an inkling of a solution.

I really struggle to see why you think the world is as simple as you say. Asking an ACist a question is moral support for statism? I dont know if you're trying to persuade people to embrace AC (I presume so) if that's the case, why not sketch out how you think it would work? You did that a few days ago with the "What if your neighbour was molesting his daughter?" question. What I'm trying to do is the same - accepting all the premises of AC (that states are coercive and monopolistic whilst the market is efficient and free) I know the coercive, monopolistic solution and you claim the free, market-driven solution is better (or at least no worse). That's fine, I'm interested. What is the solution?

[/ QUOTE ]



What I'm trying to show is that the problem you raise is embodied in the state. A state is therefore not a solution to your problem, it is the very problem you describe.

The obvious (at least to me) solution to this problem would be to stop supporting violent insane cults who commit genocide around the clock, like the state.

The solution to rape is to not rape and not supporting rape.

If you want to legitimately raise the problem of 'insane cults acquiring WMDs', then you must completely and totally reject any state.


So the witty answer to your question: what is the market solution to deal with the problem of insane cults acquiring WMDs, then my answer would be:

"Anarchist persuading statists to stop supporting insane cults with WMDs."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm trying to show is that the problem you raise is embodied in the state. A state is therefore not a solution to your problem, it is the very problem you describe.

The obvious (at least to me) solution to this problem would be to stop supporting violent insane cults who commit genocide around the clock, like the state.

The solution to rape is to not rape and not supporting rape.

If you want to legitimately raise the problem of 'insane cults acquiring WMDs', then you must completely and totally reject any state.


So the witty answer to your question: what is the market solution to deal with the problem of insane cults acquiring WMDs, then my answer would be:

"Anarchist persuading statists to stop supporting insane cults with WMDs."

[/ QUOTE ]
But once you've done that? How do you stop irrational fanatics without coercing them?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm trying to show is that the problem you raise is embodied in the state. A state is therefore not a solution to your problem, it is the very problem you describe.

The obvious (at least to me) solution to this problem would be to stop supporting violent insane cults who commit genocide around the clock, like the state.

The solution to rape is to not rape and not supporting rape.

If you want to legitimately raise the problem of 'insane cults acquiring WMDs', then you must completely and totally reject any state.


So the witty answer to your question: what is the market solution to deal with the problem of insane cults acquiring WMDs, then my answer would be:

"Anarchist persuading statists to stop supporting insane cults with WMDs."

[/ QUOTE ]
But once you've done that? How do you stop irrational fanatics without coercing them?

[/ QUOTE ]


If I can persuade you to stop supporting the state, then I think the world has a chance.

Join the voluntaryist tradition,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esLjpZLANw4

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But once you've done that? How do you stop irrational fanatics without coercing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't. Irrationality is irrational. As long as some act irrationally, there will always be problems. The question shouldn't be "how can I entirely eliminate the problem" as much as it should be "which action makes me slightly better off." The idea that all perceived problems can be fixed is very flawed, imo, and thus dangerous.

I grew up in a Republican home, so it was hard for me to break the bias that told me an invasive foreign policy was a good thing for me. Most of the canned liberal rhetoric is horrible, so that doesn't help. And since I'm not a limp-dicked vegan hippie who refuses to wear shoes, I never cared for the ideal of "non-violence" in any knee-jerk/intangible sense.

But then when you logically consider "blowback" and the broader idea that tangible consequence will always exist, it becomes clear that the heroic action is to consider that you will actually be making yourself less safe every time you act shortsightedly and forcibly restrict someone else's action. If they were inhuman and would not react, then it might be possible that you'd be doing yourself a good service to preemptively attack. But accepting that they would probably react the same way you or I would, it's pretty clear that it's impossible to make yourself safer by attacking first.

The natural order of things makes it so animals who harm members of their own species will always be harming themselves in some tangible way. United Nations resolutions or the currency by which oil is sold aren't so important that they override the consequence that billions or so years of evolutionary progress have ingrained in our condition.