Atheist Ireland Forum

Something to ponder about...

Amazon Boobs, Ancient Gods and the End of Evil

The Non-Aggression Principle

But you don't have to ponder very deeply.

The argument being advanced here is, basically, that if you think one claim to authority is bogus, you should logically conclude that all claims to authority are bogus.

They dress it up a bit, and approach it in a fairly elliptical fashion, which from their point of view is probably wise, since once you state the argument plainly its weaknesses become fairly obvious.

In a world where the cop is as out of place as the priest, how does one get from place to place? Sure, we can apparently walk where we like but doing so will obviously be dangerous. If jay-walking is not a crime, I assume neither is speeding in a car. Traffic lights would be either completely absent or entirely decorative. Maybe public transport? But who's going to pay for it? Not me, I'm just going to use it for free. Who's going to stop me? Maybe some rich benefactor will lay the tracks (repeatedly as they will be stolen as soon as they're laid) and provide the trains, and pay all the running costs, but how would someone get so rich? Anyway, the trains would likely be too dangerous to use. Not that there would be any respite on the streets either. Sure, most people want to live in peace and harmony but the complete lack of social order would make things very easy for those who wished to live off the work of others, or enjoyed violence or mayhem for its own sake.
Well, we can fix that. We don't need a state to have order. The community would form its own militia to protect its people, and as long as we have somehow managed to completely eradicate grudges, prejudices, territorialism, stupidity, corruption and poor judgement, everything should be fine.
How do we avoid these problems? Well, we could agree on a set of behaviours for everyone to follow, have rules on who can be in the militias and impose strict limits on their powers, give the opportunity for people to state their case where they feel they have been mistreated and so on. As you make the system fairer and fairer you eventually end up with something very much like the modern state. Welcome to civilisation.

I'm not sure if I've missed the point of the second cartoon but it's a cracked way to reason. Things aren't as black and white as that. An immoral ultimatum doesn't become justified when the victim is asked to choose between two evils.

Along this line of reason, people choose to be raped:
"Have sex with me, or I'll rape you"
People have free will. They can choose to obey the rapist's commands or not.
Rapists do not rape people. People choose to be raped by disobeying the rapist.

You have to agree the state serves out evil ultimatums, endorsed by its people, for this to hold. There is supposed to be an underlying greater good there, which is the essence of civilisation.

No I don't think authority is bogus e.g. the relationship between a doctor and a patient. The difference between a doctor and a thief stabbing a patient is consent. What I think is bogus is the illusion that the state is some sort of omniscient and virtuous entitiy when in reality it get's it's power through the initiation of violence or threat of violence. Laws are just opinions backed by guns.



For something to be a crime there has to be a victim so you're correct in that jay-walking or speeding in a car is not a crime. That's not to say I advocate putting ones life in danger.



Well you're not using it for free, you are paying the cost via taxation and the unseen costs of regulations. Not to mention that taxes goes to fund wars, luxury lifestyle for politicians, crony capitalists and bailouts, etc. In a free market where these services are open to competition you could paying much less. You get to choose who receives your money.

How best money should be spent is arguing from from effect anyway, similar to the time of slavery when people were afraid of emancipation because slaves couldn't read or write, how would they get jobs, who would pick the cotton and grow the crops. "everyone will starve!".

More importantly the argument from morality is that slavery is immoral, that the initiation of violence is immoral. The practical follows the moral. Once the slaves the slaves were freed there were giant leaps in technological advancements with mechanization and so on. Who knows what the future holds.



Agreed. I think ebay and amazon are good examples of what can be achieved based on reputation and feedback. The market can regulate itself without the initiation of violence, and through free association and ostracism (the highest form of non-violence).



The non-aggression principle - the central tenant of morality.



I think in that cartoon the comments should be in quotes because I think they are showing the justifications people use.

Are you saying that the state serves out evil against the same people who endorse it? Sadomasochists?

Do you agree that the initiation of violence against peaceful individuals is immoral?

If individuals really do want the services the government provides why is the intiation of violence or threat of violence [via laws and imprisonment] required? If my girlfriend wants to have sex with me why would I need to force her?

What im trying to advocate is for voluntary solutions to complex social problems. I don't have all the answers, but if we can agree on the moral the rest will follow I hope.

OK, so you're happily jay-walking across the road while I come speeding round the corner in my car. I hit you, there's a terrible mess. Your legs are broken and the front of my car is all bent out of shape. We're both victims. Who's responsible?



Yes, I know that. Those things are only possible with a state.



That's true, tax money can be misused. That does not in itself mean taxation should be abolished.



Or I could be paying much more. Given the land and infrastructure requirements involved, it's virtually impossible to have a free market in public transport. There's also the problems of fare-dodging, anti-social behaviour and theft which are currently dealt with by a legal system that you apparently wish to see abolished.



You haven't demonstrated that it's immoral for laws to exist and be enforced. You ignore the fact that it's impractical by claiming that the future will somehow solve the problems.



I don't think you got my point at all. Let's say I see you in the street and go over, punch you in the face and take your money. I will probably be apprehended by well-meaning passers-by or roving gangs, but then what? Do they lock me up? Force me to compensate you financially or in some other way? Just ostracise me? Do I get to state my case? What if I say you slept with my wife and killed my dog? Does anybody investigate to find out if this is true? If it turns out that I'm just the sort of person who takes what he wants for free, what do you do with me? You can ostracise me but I'll just hop on a train - probably without paying - and move to another town.
What if I don't punch you in the face but instead, pollute your water supply? Or build an incinerator next to your house? Who's going to stop me, and by what right?



You mean tenet, not tenant, I'm sure. The video pretty much makes the case that there are some unfair taxes and unjust laws, therefore the state should be abolished. It doesn't deal with any of the issues I've raised. It makes some valid points but the conclusions it reaches do not follow from those points.



I certainly do, and am opposed to all laws that proscribe behaviour that does not harm others. I also favour the right of adults to opt out of society as much as possible. And I think taxes should be ring-fenced as much as possible, so that motorists pay the bulk of road tax, high earners pay the bulk of education costs, etc.



To stop people freeloading. The problem with "every man for himself" philosophies is that this automatically benefits the rich. And the rich aren't rich because they're better people than the poor, or by some divine right. They're rich because of the way the system works. In a free market, money begets money. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer. The richer someone gets, the more they can stack the odds in their favour. The current system of taxing the poor and letting the rich off scot-free is certainly not working, but this is not a problem with the principle of taxation.



Well, so far we haven't. I think it's a moral requirement that all children should have the right to medical care and education. Do you agree?

I don't know.



If you want to pay taxes even 100% taxation that's completely fine with me . I respect your choice and I don't wish you any harm for that choice. However I don't, will you grant me the same respect?



I don't wish to see a system of security and justice abolished. Check out the The Market for Security for a good introduction.



Well there's a very simple test: Try not obeying a law and see what happens to you. Try not paying taxes and see what what happens to you.

[/quote]

I would also like answers to these questions.



I favor individuals the right to opt out of government, not society. I'm not advocating for some hippy style commune where people alienate themselves from others. I want the initiation of violence abolished. I want individuals to come even closer together and solve complex social problems peacefully and voluntarily.



[/quote][/quote]

People, in a free market, get rich by voluntarily providing value to others. Have you ever done anything entrepreneurial?

[/quote][/quote]

I don't think these are moral requirements because who will provide this stuff without the initiation of violence? Life belongs to the individual not to another, that includes teachers and doctors. I think charity is fine though.

Funkyderek, did you ever try to reason with a running tap?

Is there any way to find out? There are victims. Is there then a crime? Who decides? "I don't know" is not good enough. It's not enough to read Ayn Rand and watch a few videos. You have to ask questions. If you can't find the answers, maybe it's because the system you're advocating is flawed.



Personally, I would. I think once you have reached the age of majority and paid back what the state spent on you, I think you should be allowed to opt out. Not being eligible for social security of any sort would probably make up for the services you get simply because everyone else is paying taxes (pavements, street lighting etc.) It would be a meagre existence but if you can do without all the benefits of modern society, I think you should be allowed to.



Multiple competing police forces? I'm not even going to stoop to argue that point.



What exactly is that testing? By design, the system punishes those who break the law.



You'll find that's very close to what we have. Many of the problems of modern society seem to me to be because government is in the hands of large corporations who have benefitted so much from the "free market" that they can buy the government. And you want to make that the way the system is supposed to work?
Do you consider anthropogenic global warming to be the initiation of violence? What about earthquakes caused by fracking? Species being driven to extinction because there is a lucrative market in their body parts? How do you propose to deal with these issues in the absence of government? Or do you? Those with money can largely buy their way out of those problems, move to higher ground in less polluted areas, say fuck the rhino. It's a free market right? If people place a higher financial value on living rhinos than on dead ones, we'll get to keep them, is that it?



And once they are rich, they get richer, because they can underprice or buy out their competitors. They can invest and hoard their wealth so their descendants start rich and get richer. They also need things to be stacked in their favour. Bill Gates would not have got rich if people had simply been allowed to copy his programs for free. He needed the protection of law, and of a government willing to initiate violence against those who broke it.



There is no shortage of teachers and doctors. People do not choose those professions to make money and some at least will provide them even in the face of violence.
The problem is that you have fetishised free market economics to the point of worship. Whether it makes the world better or worse is immaterial to you, the market must be free, no matter what. Why is that your supreme value? Why, above all else do you value the "right" of people to own luxury objects at the expense of the lives of others? What is the basis of your morality?

I just realised the first two links posted in the OP were videos, I originally thought they were references to the following cartoons. I'm not convinced by either. I think they are unilateral in their argument and sensationalised, particularly the second. And from what I'm picking up from the thread I don't see how removing state authority, taxation and giving people the ability to withdraw from the system is a suitable alternative. In fact I'm finding the suggestion rather capricious.

I really think it should be noted that there are many benefits to the current system, it's not ideal by any means but for the most part it's allowing freedom to the majority (I'm mainly referring to European states here). We have a long way to go but there is ongoing progress, which is all we can ask for.

JonnyD you might find this topic of interest
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4715