It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true “small government.” Didn’t work so well. — Xtrix

Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason.

In any case, you’re talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all we’ve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. — Xtrix

Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic.

It creates unnatural incentives and as a result essentially forces the government to stay involved. It only worsens the problem in the long run as people are lured into businesses that would not be able to stay afloat naturally.

That goes on until the power of government is no longer enough to support this unnatural situation. The house of cards always comes tumbling down at some point, the question is how long we allow ourselves to keep building on crumbling foundations - government interventions can drag this on for a very long time, as we've seen with the banking crises, the finale of which we're still due.

There’s a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. — Xtrix

I'm sure there are, and not all of them without merit, though the federal reserve has certainly done more harm than good.

On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (“regimented capitalism”). That era — from 40s to early 70s — is what most people mean by America’s golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations — especially the financial sector — all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society — at least for white people. — Xtrix

Every system and policy has its benefits and detractors. To me the question would be how much of that prosperity was made possible by the fact virtually every other country in the world lay in ruins and the United States had near-unlimited global reign as a result of World War 2. You're pointing at a 30-year period - that is not a very long time. What happens after that period, when the rest of the world is once again able to compete with the US economy?

It no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. — Xtrix

You may believe this, but the world disagreed, and people came from all over the world to live under this 'terrible' system. You are dismissing classic liberal ideas and libertarianism as "nonsense" and fantasy - it's crazy. The proof is in the pudding.

Maybe you've mistaken me as arguing for some kind of libertarian utopia on practical grounds - I'm certainly not doing that. Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government.

I'll happily take the good with the bad. No system is perfect. It seems you're keen on pointing at all the things that go well as a sign of success of your ideas, but ignore the flipside of the coin, so it's a bit unfair you're accusing me of harboring fantasies.

Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. — Benkei

Strong governments produce the vessel by which politics can do its damage. I agree, if we were somehow able to seperate governance from imperfect man perhaps we'd be in agreement.

That power finds its way into the hands of powerful and often corrupt individuals anyway, however the question is whether they get to use and abuse their power on the market through economic force, or through government through coercion, or worse yet, both.

That's why I believe governments should be small, with very limited mandates: because malignant power exercised through economics, while it can also be very unpleasant, is of a different order of magnitude than malignant power excercised through government.

I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture. — Benkei

Had you asked me five or six years ago, I would have agreed. I don't know what exactly changed, but if I had to guess (and a guess is all it is) is that multinational business has grown so powerful that it can use all these mandates governments have given themselves to further assert their power - crony capitalism at its worst.

However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen.

Being exploited by private business is of course equally unpleasant, but at least private business will always have to contend with law and a government's monopoly on violence - its evils and power over citizens is at least limited to a degree. Government has no such boundaries.

I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing. — Benkei

I agree. It's one of many instances that contributed to my disillusionment.

I've come to regard this process by which a system corrupts over time as an inevitability, which is exactly the reason why I feel the power of such systems should be kept small by its very structure.

Perhaps this trend may reverse itself naturally by the integrity of our system, if indeed it still possesses any. Maybe. But that remains to be seen and I am skeptical.

And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way. — Benkei

It seems to me most political parties in the Netherlands are occupied with staying friendly with one another, which essentially ensures the role of opposition is no longer carried out the way it should, with some individuals being the exception.

I suppose this is one advantage the United States has with their two party system: they hate each other's guts so when one party does something questionable or unlawful, the other party will expose it ruthlessly, thereby at least the function of opposition is still carried out. In the Netherlands it is swept under the rug. Some people who take their role as statesmen and -women seriously will still call attention to it, but their power simply does not compare to that of the political order.

Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented — as all capitalists know. — Xtrix

They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP.

A good state for humanity is that everyone leads a flourishing life and we therefore have less crime, better education and health and generally a better society which needs less intervention from governments. — TheVeryIdea

It is very questionable whether large governments produce these things, and whether large governments will ever cede their power when they become superfluous.

The vast majority of people will seek to protect their wealth, this includes the very wealthy, so very few people will give up any more than they absolutely have to even though there is an enlightened self interest to do so. If you earn 100k per year, in 10 years you will have earned 1 million of whatever currency you are being paid. It would take you 10,000 years to earn 1 billion, yes that's ten thousand years! No one needs to have 1 billion, even 100 million looks excessive. — TheVeryIdea

Judging other people's wealth to be excessive is a very typical thing. Suppose an ascetic came along and started to judge your wealth. They judge that you could do without all of that fancy food, nice-looking clothes, your car, your house, warm showers, etc. After all, they don't need those things so why should you?

Greed is something that only other people ever seem to be guilty of, and excessive wealth only applies to people who are wealthier than ourselves. The irony is that much of that 'excessive wealth' is created by providing goods and services that benefit society, and that those 'excessively rich' people also pay more taxes and thus contribute more to other people's well-being already.

It is in everyone's interest to have a stable society and not have wild economic fluctuations, bubbles, wars, market crashes, revolutions. Therefore there needs to be regulation and taxation to create a society that is seen as fair and allows everyone to flourish and to do that by curbing the worst excesses of the most acquisitive. — TheVeryIdea

It is not evident that big government prevents such things. In fact, government intervention often leads to unexpected consequences down the line which arguably are worse than what it sought to mend.

In my view, governments seem to often trade small, short-term problems for large, long-term ones - partly due to ignorance and partly due to election politics.

Let the economy run its course and there will be ups and downs, crises, of course. However, what government intervention often does is it tries to prevent these natural fluctuations, resulting in ultimately a bigger crisis.

One example would be how the US government has gotten into the habit of extending guarantees to large banks who they deemed 'too big to fail', which predictably caused those large banks to exhibit more and more problematic behavior now that their risk is essentially carried by the government.

Perhaps that first bank should have just been allowed to fail. That would be a disaster for some people, of course. But that would be the end of it. From that point onward it would be clear to all that risky business practices bring along real risks, and that no one is going to bail them out. Further, it would've perhaps lead to a greater deal of consciousness among the people that they need to be critical of their banks' business practices, because they are also the bearers of that risk.

Don’t think what’s justified?
6h — Xtrix

For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted.

Sure— and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of “Government is the problem” and “ the era of big government is over.” We have to shrink the government, because it’s to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results. — Xtrix

Well, I don't know about the rhetoric, but policy guided by classical liberalism hasn't been seen in the United States for a very long time.

Government spending in the US has been on a steady rise since the early 20th century and has never made any significant move towards the opposite. And that's no surprise, because that would derive a lot of powerful people of their power.

If politicians sell more government under the guise of less government, then that is a different problem.

Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified.

This discussion was about the difference between how governments behaved and the free market. In fact, you brought it up.

Now you've been told the difference, and suddenly it is no longer about free markets. Funny how that works.

(though curiously never "I see, you're right") — Isaac

I guess that's your problem. Your tendency to resort to pedantics to try and "win" an argument has been noted, and not just by me.

If you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.

If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move. — Isaac

I think we're done here.

This has already been answered. Your miserable lack of success at competing is not the same as the government not letting you compete. — Isaac

That's the competition. If your security force can't compete with the government's that's their weakness. Toughen up! — Isaac

You don't seem to understand the idea a free market.

A free market is free of coercion. That's why we call it free.

What is the government doing to stop you from competing? Coercing you.

You understand that competition entails using power to compete? — Tzeentch

Same as government's. — Isaac

This has already been answered.

The government will not let you compete.

For example, it's quite conceivable that if you lived in a small rural town far away from law enforcement, a local protection service would serve you better than what the state provides.

Now lets say the people in the town want you to offer this service, and you have a group of burly, armed men who are willing to provide it, then that would seem like a perfectly good way to set up a business.

However, the government will not let you do this. It will throw you jail, and punish you for even trying.

You say this is the same as what a hypothetical bigger security company would do to you on the free market (ignoring for a moment the government's monopoly), but that's clearly not the case.

The only thing a bigger security firm could do in order to stop you is to compete with you. To offer better services at a lower cost, in order to persuade the townsfolk to voluntarily choose their services over the local services. It cannot force people to buy its services, force people to stop buying other services than theirs, or force people to stop offering their services - the government can.

Incidentally, I’m not in favor of “big government” or whatever conventional view of current-say liberals you want to ascribe to me. I’m just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and “liberty” offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth that’s occurred these last 40 years. — Xtrix

I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.

It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism.

By steadily feeding the beast for decades, we've created the worst of both worlds. Government spending in the US is now equal to roughly 30% of GDP. As far as classical liberal ideas go, this state of affairs could hardly be more antithetical.

Does Amazon let me compete freely? No, it does everything in its power to maintain its market dominance. — Isaac

That is the essence of free competition. You understand that competition entails using power to compete?

So the only people who commit violence are the government? Where the hell do you live? — Isaac

Nice try, but crime rings are not participating in a free market. If you think they do, see what happens when you offer your services for violence publicly.

Got any more pedanticism in you? You seem to possess an inexhaustible supply.

I can set up an internet sales company. Amazon might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. — Isaac

Amazon cannot stop you from setting up an internet sales company, and any consequences that may arise from your attempt is a result of either your product not being good, too costly to produce, or people not wanting to buy it.

If people want to buy your product, and your business can at least break even, there is nothing Amazon can do to stop your business from competing with theirs.

Sure, Amazon may leverage the fact people find their offer more attractive than yours, but that has nothing to do with your attempt at setting up your own company.

It seems like what you're doing is blaming Amazon for your failed enterprise, when it is you yourself who is to blame for not being able to provide a better or cheaper product that people want to buy from you.

This has already been demonstrated with the Black Rock example of insurance - which predictably was ignored.


Now, let's compare this with a government and its monopoly on violence:

Does a government let you compete freely on the market? No. Under no circumstance. It won't even allow you to offer your product, let alone compete.

It doesn't matter if you're able to provide a better product than the government, as soon as you try to put it on the market, you are stopped either by law or by force.

You then try to make an argument that if only you're able to get above a certain threshold of customers, you would be able to violently overthrow the government, implying this is the same as how companies compete on the market. This is of course not the case, and no such threshold is necessary for a normal business to compete on the market.

You'll find that it's perfectly possible for large and small companies to exist alongside each other. That's called free competition. Smaller companies often enjoy benefits that make their products cheaper to produce or more attractive locally, and they may compete on that basis. For the government's monopoly on violence that is not so.


An 8-year old could understand the difference, and this is peak pedanticism.

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. — Xtrix

You've got it exactly backwards.

Individuals are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and a government is not needed to tell them what to do, what to spend their money on, etc. It needs to create a framework where individuals can cooperate voluntarily, without coercion. And fundamentally, it needs to be understood that government is itself a tool for coercion, which is exactly why its application must be done sparingly and carefully. That's essentially the basis of all of liberalism - true liberalism, not the poorly-hidden authoritarianism that modern liberalism parades as.

It's the lovers of big government that believe governments should tell people what to do, how to act, what to say, what to think and what to spend their money on, and don't you forget it.

Cut away all the fluffy language, and the lovers of big government are doing nothing less than asking said government to impose their ideals on other people. Because apparently those people need to be told what to do, think, etc. so perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate.

That's the parents' intention - to create a new child. — Tzeentch

... certainly such lunacy is not common. — Isaac

Are we done here? I think we're done here.

What do they intend to force on this child? — Isaac

Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. In other, less harsh words - to create a new child.

Not relevant to the question at hand, we are now talking about the parent's intention.

The child they wish to have.

The intention of the parent is to force another being to exist. There.

That's what a future parent intends - to create a new living being.

Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off. — Isaac

Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative.

Amazon may take advantage of poverty, and that may or may not be immoral, but that is not the same as creating it. Likely those people would be worse off if Amazon disappeared. You simply believe Amazon should offer them a better deal.

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'? — Isaac

I can't take this argument seriously.

Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit" — Isaac

If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here.

Government doesn't protect its position with violence. — Isaac

Of course it does. It does so in war, stopping violent protests, etc. And when it doesn't use physical violence it uses threats of violence. How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so?

Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital. — Isaac

Governments function through violence, the free market does not. They're not even remotely the same.

...enough people. Just like governments. — Isaac

Nonsense. Two people could agree to cover each other's insurance and deprive Black Rock. Black Rock wouldn't care, and this two-person deal may not be as cost effective as what Black Rock offers, but the option is there. All Black Rock could do to stop you, is try to persuade your business partner.

Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products (like governments can) and they cannot stop you from competing on the market (like governments can).

Government and business function fundamentally differently.

What can happen is that government and business form an unholy alliance against the common man, which is exactly why specifically governments need to be kept small and relatively weak in their power over people and business.

They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice. — Isaac

In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. In a world where businesses are also warlords I think it is safe to say we have departed from the context of this discussion.

Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could. — Isaac

It threatens me with violence every day. Every law is enforced by threat of violence. If I don't pay my taxes I get thrown in jail - violence. If I don't stay indoors during the pandemic, I get thrown in jail - violence. Etc.

They're overt threats of violence too, it is all written down in laws so no one has to guess whether the government will get violent if one of its laws are broken - they basically guarantee it. Those are threats.

But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete? — Isaac

For one, the intention to force a human being to live.

One is about impositions, the other about consequences. — Isaac

It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing.

I think what argues is that impositions are immoral based on the intention to impose, thereby the intention is all that is needed, and it doesn't depend on the consequences.

Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions. — Isaac

What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute?

Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' — Isaac

Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. There was no need to redefine.

It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against. — Isaac

On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it.

We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again. — Isaac

What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers.

Of course it does. Government's are elected. — Isaac

Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens.

Governments can be overthrown. — Isaac

Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. No violence necessary, just people making decisions freely.

It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. — Isaac

I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.

I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one.

What is the difference between imposing on someone and forcing a consequent someone to undergo consequences?

They can basically make you destitute. — Isaac

Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute?

The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. — Isaac

In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government.

But I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters.

So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army! — Isaac

Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products, and if they want to take care of their own insurance, nothing's stopping them. Black Rock can't do anything about that except try to sway the people back to their side.

With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, and governments will protect their monopoly on violence with violence.

So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? — Isaac

In most countries companies aren't allowed to coerce. What can a company threaten you with? That it will no longer serve you? I don't see how that is all that threatening, unless they have monopolized basic needs.

Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed. — Isaac

That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.

If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it.

Like...? — Isaac

Beating down peaceful protesters, for example.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences). — baker

Okay, but I fear I will get no further than a psycho-analysis.

And while those may sometimes be interesting and handy, they don't carry much weight as I am not a mind reader.

I'm also going to inevitably step on a lot of toes, but lets try:

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified.


Honorable mention:

- Savior image: one reason I have often seen espoused here is that humanity would cease to exist without procreation. While that is undeniably true, it also suggests that they see the inherent problem with procreation, but choose to procreate anyway as a sort of personal sacrifice to the greater good of humanity. I've always found this one quite humorous, because it suggests the person views themselves as carrying the weight of humanity's survival on their shoulders - a savior figure, if you will. I also don't think there's anyone who genuinely believes this, and that it is more likely a variation on confirmation bias.


Anyway, this is a fun exercise, but it's also a bit cheap. Don't take it too serious.

While I find myself leaning strongly towards the antinatalist side (when compelled by reason, I find I have no choice in that matter), I am still very much part of the active debate and don't consider myself "an antinatalist". I respect everyone who continues to weigh arguments from both sides.

No, but they can make your life extremely difficult if you don't. Just like governments can. — Isaac

I'm not so sure about that.

They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them.

I would argue the evils of government are a whole order of magnitude worse. That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large cooperations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful cooperations than they are to curb their power.

Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could.

Indeed, just like there's no restriction on you setting up your own government and vying for power. — Isaac

Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use.

If on the other hand you want to get together with your pals to cover each other's insurance, can Black Rock stop you?

OK, so if the Thai government used other means - theft, coercion, bullying, grooming, punitive treatment... You'd be OK. — Isaac

No of course not. But it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. Every government functions that way. It's only tools are violence and coercion.

And just because I can threaten you into complying with my wishes, and thereby don't have to be forced violently, that does not change the nature of my act.

When was the last time you know of that the Thai government used violence to enforce its laws? What about the UK government? — Isaac

I don't live in those countries. But wherever you live, the answer is probably all the time.

I live in what most consider a 'civilized' country, and even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity.

In Thailand it is now impossible to get insurance without your provider being ultimately Black Rock. They own every single insurance provider in Thailand. — Isaac

Monopolies and large, centralized power whether in the hands of governments or cooperations is mostly bad. I think at least we can agree on that.

However, Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products, or stop you from getting together with other people who are fed up with their business practices and start something new.

you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.

If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move.

Explain to me the difference. — Isaac

The Thai government forces me through threat of violence to comply with its wishes and buy its services. Black Rock doesn't.

Further, the fact that my family could move to make the schoolyard bully stop taking my lunch money does not change the coercive nature of his act. Neither does whether people vote on whether he gets to take my lunch money. For one, why does anyone get to vote on that, and second, if my voting power is not enough to protect my interests, voting does nothing to relieve the coercion I am subjected to.

governments are not coercive because agents can either vote or move. — Isaac

:snicker:

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

Sure. But one is the result of the voluntary exchange and association, the other of coercion.

I'd say people who seek to coerce have a much larger burden to defend their actions than people who interact voluntarily.

But how come you're different than those people? — baker

No idea. I may just be very dumb and fail to see how their logic adds up.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you? — baker

Insofar as is relevant to this discussion, no.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation? — baker

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity?

For a lot of those it is debatable whether they were achieved by government meddling, or whether their results were at all desirable.

Anyway, my point was never that governments shouldn't do anything.

But if we're going to keep score, shall we also list the many evils governments have perpetrated?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation? — baker

I can't read people's minds.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently.

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), ... — baker

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences? — baker

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments.

I don't think opponents of government intervention are not in favor of improving the lives of their fellow man, they simply see governments as a flawed means of getting there. In fact, you could say that the opponents believe that seeking to solve many such issues is inherently in vain and causes more harm than good.

This characterization to classify people who generally are not in favor of government intervention as selfish is just naive and arrogant.

Proponents of government intervention tend to look at issues very one-sidedly, pointing at one group as the clear victim and thereby justifying their actions, not understanding that government intervention almost always creates new victims elsewhere.

There is no free lunch.

If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.

The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded. It's an act of force.

You're attempting to hide in the fuzzy cracks, but we've progressed. You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into.

You've already admitted to pulling the trigger. Now it's time to take responsibility for the bullet, and the person it killed.

The person being born was not forced to live. they cannot have been because they didn't exist until after that event. — Isaac

That's irrelevant. The parents know that by their direct actions a child will come to be, and that child has no choice in whether it does or not. It's an intentional act that disregards the wills of whom it affects - an act of force.

If I recall, that's your argument. Your the one who wants to avoid all responsibility for anything you didn't directly cause. — Isaac

You recall incorrectly.

In the case of procreation the parents cause the child to be born. In the examples we discussed the moral agent doesn't cause anything and therefore does not bear responsibility.

You could claim that the parents forced a gamete to become a person. — Isaac

The parents willfully initiated a process which they knew would result in a person being born and thus forced to live.

An act of force.

Note that your argument is about causal chains, and that, apparently, one can only be responsible for the first step.

I only pulled a trigger, I never shot the gun. It's the bullet that killed him, but I am innocent!

And more importantly still, what difference does it make? Clearly an act of force took place.