Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

The components that compose an individual don't act though--they aren't purposeful creatures using means to attain ends. I am not trying to sidestep the fact that individuals, too, are collections of chemicals, atoms, etc--but it isn't relevant when discussing action (i.e., purposeful behavior). When discussing motives, ethics, goals, etc, individuals (and not the components that compose them, nor the collectives that the individuals compose) are the primary actors.

[/ QUOTE ]
My arm doesn't pull the trigger; my brain does. Some of my cells in fact *are* the actors.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense? Seriously, I don't understand how this isn't obvious--anytime something like a collective is "acting" (eg, a mob), it can only act insofar as the individual members that compose the collective act.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
The organs of a human body cannot act outside of a body. I can't disconnect my lungs and larnx and have them talk to people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Your point is that somehow the fact that BOTH a person and a collective can act is somehow impossible because BOTH a person and some lungs cannot act? That doesn't seem very robust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lungs + larynx do not constitute a moral agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. You seem to think that the fact that lungs+larynx aren't a moral agent somehow means you can generalize that only human beings can act. Thats silly. Just because nothing SIMPLER than a human can be a moral agent doesn't mean nothing more complex can be.

Your argument is support for the idea that humans can't be governments or collectives, not that collectives cant do the same things as people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in the middle of a croud of 10,000 people. Many, most, almost all, are shouting and demanding things. This croud of 10,000 (me + 9,999 people) is the whole of a country. Many of them have signs for 'x'. Many are shouting "we want x". I happen to be in the middle of the croud, sitting on a lawn chair, reading a book. I happen to not be paying attention to the people around me shouting and waving signs, I am engrossed in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think this is possible?

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

The components that compose an individual don't act though--they aren't purposeful creatures using means to attain ends. I am not trying to sidestep the fact that individuals, too, are collections of chemicals, atoms, etc--but it isn't relevant when discussing action (i.e., purposeful behavior). When discussing motives, ethics, goals, etc, individuals (and not the components that compose them, nor the collectives that the individuals compose) are the primary actors.

[/ QUOTE ]

The components most certainly do act. In what way is a white blood cell attacking a foreign body, or a nerve cell contracting a muscle cell any less purposeful than anything a human does? Perhaps you'd like to illuminate your definition of "purposeful".

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, statism's options for dealing with the poor are vastly more flexible than DCism's - rather obviously, in fact, since they include all the methods of DCism (IE markets, charity) as well as all the methods of statism.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose spending $400 billion in Iraq is good for getting people out of poverty? If you want to help a crippled man get up, the first thing you should do is stop stepping on his leg.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're conflating "the US" with "all statism". Statism =/= status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. We simply need the people who think like YOU do in charge, then everything will be just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this sums up jogger in a nutshell methinks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually bk, this is the position you've advocated, I believe. "bkholdem-incharge-ism". At least at the moment, I'm looking only for converts. You're the one who has said he wants subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

We both want subjects. I'm straight forward about this plain and simple fact. Or we both want 'converts' if you prefer.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense? Seriously, I don't understand how this isn't obvious--anytime something like a collective is "acting" (eg, a mob), it can only act insofar as the individual members that compose the collective act.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
The organs of a human body cannot act outside of a body. I can't disconnect my lungs and larnx and have them talk to people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Your point is that somehow the fact that BOTH a person and a collective can act is somehow impossible because BOTH a person and some lungs cannot act? That doesn't seem very robust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lungs + larynx do not constitute a moral agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. You seem to think that the fact that lungs+larynx aren't a moral agent somehow means you can generalize that only human beings can act. Thats silly. Just because nothing SIMPLER than a human can be a moral agent doesn't mean nothing more complex can be.

Your argument is support for the idea that humans can't be governments or collectives, not that collectives cant do the same things as people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in the middle of a croud of 10,000 people. Many, most, almost all, are shouting and demanding things. This croud of 10,000 (me + 9,999 people) is the whole of a country. Many of them have signs for 'x'. Many are shouting "we want x". I happen to be in the middle of the croud, sitting on a lawn chair, reading a book. I happen to not be paying attention to the people around me shouting and waving signs, I am engrossed in my book.

Am I part of the 'croud'?
Is the 'croud' representing me?

What about if there are 2,000 gathered and 1,500 are for x ((actually some are for x-1, some x-2, etc) and the other 500 are for y (actually y-1, etc). The other 8,000 are off somewhere else reading books. Are they part of the croud, or collective? If yes, please explain how as I am a little stupid and don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not on the 'collectives can act' side of this argument. I'm on the 'bringing up lungs+larynx to support your argument that collectives cannot act is fallacious' side.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

The components that compose an individual don't act though--they aren't purposeful creatures using means to attain ends. I am not trying to sidestep the fact that individuals, too, are collections of chemicals, atoms, etc--but it isn't relevant when discussing action (i.e., purposeful behavior). When discussing motives, ethics, goals, etc, individuals (and not the components that compose them, nor the collectives that the individuals compose) are the primary actors.

[/ QUOTE ]

The components most certainly do act. In what way is a white blood cell attacking a foreign body, or a nerve cell contracting a muscle cell any less purposeful than anything a human does? Perhaps you'd like to illuminate your definition of "purposeful".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only really true if the most rigid biological determinism holds. Is that really the argument you want to make? The difference is that white blood cells don't have any choice or will. They do things, but they don't ACT. Act, as they are using it, carries an implicit moral component. White cells dont act any more than rocks act to fall down a hill. Some people think people are different than this.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You are showing one thing, that components don't act, and using that to conclude the other thing, that collectives don't. Thats just bait and switch, the two suppositions are entirely unrelated. The fact that lungs aren't moral agents says absolutely nothing about whether groups act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already argued that collectives can't act, and frankly this seems self-evident. I wasn't the one that brought up components (my points were a repsonse to the idea that a human being itself was a collective of acting components, which is false), and my argument against collectives acting is, as you pointed out, totally unrelated.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, statism's options for dealing with the poor are vastly more flexible than DCism's - rather obviously, in fact, since they include all the methods of DCism (IE markets, charity) as well as all the methods of statism.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose spending $400 billion in Iraq is good for getting people out of poverty? If you want to help a crippled man get up, the first thing you should do is stop stepping on his leg.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're conflating "the US" with "all statism". Statism =/= status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. We simply need the people who think like YOU do in charge, then everything will be just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this sums up jogger in a nutshell methinks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually bk, this is the position you've advocated, I believe. "bkholdem-incharge-ism". At least at the moment, I'm looking only for converts. You're the one who has said he wants subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

We both want subjects. I'm straight forward about this plain and simple fact. Or we both want 'converts' if you prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want subjects, you and I differ. Believe it or don't as you like.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are showing one thing, that components don't act, and using that to conclude the other thing, that collectives don't. Thats just bait and switch, the two suppositions are entirely unrelated. The fact that lungs aren't moral agents says absolutely nothing about whether groups act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already argued that collectives can't act, and frankly this seems self-evident. I wasn't the one that brought up components (my points were a repsonse to the idea that a human being itself was a collective of acting components, which is false), and my argument against collectives acting is, as you pointed out, totally unrelated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the point is, human beings ARE a collective, and they act. They just aren't a collective of parts that act, they are a collective of parts that don't. The ability to act appears to be some sort of emergent property. So, now you add together a bunch of parts that CAN act, and it lends intuitive creedence to the argument that groups of people can in fact act. That some emergent sort of consciousness exists.

It by no means proves or demonstrates this. It just lends intuitive support. The fact that my lungs aren't actors is BAD for your argument, not good for it.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Really?? Meaning the last point? Suppose in some weird sense it could be shown to be moral to hold your own head under water till you suffered brain damage, such that you could never again voluntarily hold your own head underwater. (Yes, it's a weird example.) Would you not think the fact that it was self-defeating would almost have to undermine the argument (of whatever nature) that it was moral to do the act in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to even comment on this sense the example is so weird and so completely out of context (one might be inclined to do something of the sort, say, if holding your head under water would somehow save your child). But, yes, in most circumstances, if doing something was really self-defeating then one wouldn't have a moral obligation to do it.

In any case, I don't hold the position that consequences and questions about 'whether things work' is unimportant--I just don't think it's the only important question. Certainly we should tend to do things that work, but just as certainly not in the case when the means are bad in and of themselves. Thus, even if we found a tax that worked really well (be it for some small group of people, or some magic tax that was somehow pareto optimal), I would still oppose it because the ends don't justify the means.