By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?

None of those. I guess I'm talking about an abstraction, maybe.

I believe the primary function or purpose of a state is protection: maybe that's protection from other nations or protection of rights... either way, it's about security. if the state is unable to provide adequate security we say it's a "weak state" or a "failed state." I think history also teaches us that governments tend to grow, at least once they've established stability.

Hey Brett, I didn't mean to abandon the discussion. In any case you've thrown a lot of questions at me and I'll start with one or two and I guess we'll go from there. I'd rather explore 1-2 questions deeply then go after 5-6 and have everything be shallow/branch off.

Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles.

I hear this point often, but there's a lot to unpack with the word "equal." If individualism is saying that all men are equal in talent or ability then it's obviously stupid. I think what it's saying is that all men have inherent equal value - e.g. a king's life is ultimately worth the same as a poor man's per se. In any case, broadly speaking I conceive of individualism as just any philosophy which emphasizes the individual and their ability to pursue their own ends unencumbered.

If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing

I think it can come to threaten the state because the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. I hope I'm being clear here. As one example of this, lets say Trump and even the US Government as a whole is friendly with Russia. Lets say Trump likes Putin are two are friends.

Well, even still Russia is a growing nation and has historically been expansionist and not too long ago annexed part of Ukraine. Russia is also active in Latin/South America. Even though the two leaders might like each other, the states are in some sort of tension as both vie for power and influence. Both each have powerful space programs.

In any case, I think individualism can threaten the state if an individual accrues considerable power or threatens to undermine the state's power through maybe technology or something along those lines. The battle for encryption/privacy between the state and cypherpunks is what I have in mind here.

Correct - it depends on which way that he meant it. If he meant it by the definition that you described then I guess the insult loses its humor a little.

What's funny about this issue is that it's actually united liberals and conservatives against the lunatic fringe who support/are sympathetic to either violence against police or violence towards businesses/looting. I follow right-wing twitter and even the conservative hosts are talking about the need for police reform and obviously the injustice of the Floyd murder.

I was called a "one note liberal" earlier which is kind of funny because I don't remember the last time I was ever called a liberal. I'm center-right/libertarian.

If we feel bad about the homeless guy do we also feel bad about black and minority-owned businesses in low income areas being torched and looted? Do our sympathies extend to small white-owned businesses in low-income areas? I'm just not sure where people who are sympathetic to the riots draw the line.

In any case, the proposals by @fdrake seem reasonable and I've been supporting body cameras and increased transparency by the police forces for a while now.

Good post.

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum.

While there may be some sort of rational discussion to be found here in this thread, I don't think it can be had with those who for no serious reason support destroying local businesses and in turn the communities that house these businesses. It's just destruction for the sake of destruction. Simply having righteous anger doesn't entitle one to a blank cheque when it comes to violence and no one can seriously entertain this viewpoint intellectually speaking.

Good. No one cares about harmless protests.

Man, those local business owners must have really, really had it coming. I never realized you hated small business owners so much.

Well, if conceiving reality is toxic then so be it because this is the way the powerful act as though they conceive. I think you are not so naive as to not know that.

So where does the middle class fall in this divide? How about the upper middle class? How about the wealthy disabled kid? Does he still qualify as one of the elite? Where do wealthy minorities fall? Do blacks who own their own successful businesses qualify as elites?

I understand there are elites out there... I just think there are a lot of shades of grey and when it comes to social class in America some people define elite as $1M net worth, others as $10M, or $100M... it's not always clear. Then you take into account that someone may be disabled or very awkward or unattractive. I do stand against laws that favor the elite, by the way, like accredited investor rules.

I think its toxic though to have an entire mindset or mentality just based on "punching up" or fighting those with privilege. Pretty much everyone is both privileged or unprivileged in certain ways.

I think conceiving of politics as a war of one group against another or how to elevate my group above others is essentially toxic. I'd say this even in the case of a poor person who supports his class: His view doesn't take into account race, disability, appearance, health, body type, etc. - you can't account for everything which might victimize a person. We should work to empower people and protect their basic rights, not view politics as a war of my group against yours.

And for the record I disagree with the 2008 bailouts.

It seems to me you've been trying to draw (or at least entertain) some sort of connection between destroying businesses/rioting to ending systemic racism and I'm just not seeing it.

We both agree that no one should looting private businesses so... It's possible I misunderstood you I've got a lot of responses to get to here.

I didn't make it about you, you did. See I don't claim to care too much about strangers' economic situations, so I don't have to defend it. Stick to abstracts like 'justice' is my advice. You know - ideas.

...You asked me what I personally do about hunger, so I took that as a personal question.

Yeah, it helps when you don't care about strangers' economic situations when you're advocating or condoning burning down their businesses and destroying their jobs. Nice little mental buffer you've got there - leave the problem of how to get food on their table or their bills paid without their source of income to them. Sure, we're philosophers why bother with economics?

So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it.

Are you really saying this in regard to my opinion that one shouldn't go around setting fire to businesses and now possibly homes? Is that what you're saying?

From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?

Even on this front it fails. Does burning down target lead to ending systemic justice? No. When I asked you for an explanation you conveniently didn't address this.

So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian.

So burn down their businesses. Stick it to the man, you think the CEO of Wal-Mart or Target will be visiting the local homeless shelter or food bank? No, who gets hurt is disporportionately those on the lower end of the totem pole of the company that they're working for; in other words, those more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck. Even socialist states or communists states have their own elite; and in the off chance you were able to somehow re-set society and turn everything back to 0 you'd just get another class of elites developing, so...

Do you? Really? What do you do about it?

Well, I don't destroy their places of work for one. I feel like this is becoming more about me than anything ideas-based so I don't see how it's too relevant. Nonetheless, I'm a pretty generous tipper and I'm happy to give personal financial advise/help people figure out a budget.

Thing is that a jury gets to decide that unless they convince him to plead guilty for the good of the country. So you never know.

Should we riot over a jury decision? It's one thing not to prosecute cops, but it's another when they have their day in court. As long as the prosecution and judge do their jobs.

A jury decision is a citizenry thing. It's different if a judge gives the cop a BS light sentence.

This is 100% spot on. In reality I couldn't actually riot regardless since... I'm a state employee but I was just conveying my dismay. But yeah - it is a jury decision and while unfortunate.... I wouldn't actually riot.

Yes, I can see that. If it was about one man being killed, I would agree with you. But it isn't. One man is killed by another while other police look on impassively and the whole thing is on video, and no one is arrested. If this passes, then anything passes. So I am going to throw all my toys out of the pram, and all your toys out of your pram, and every other bugger's toys out of their prams, until everyone altogether decides that this will not pass. This is war. Don't act surprised when Poland gets invaded.

Chauvin was arrested. He will likely go to jail. I know the other officers were fired and there may be other charges; we'll see. Honestly, if Chauvin gets off then I'd join in some of the riots. Not against private businesses though.

We can throw toys out of the pram, I don't care. What I do care about is people and children going hungry because their jobs were lost because their workplaces were destroyed.

they say there is no absolute legitimacy to the rule of law when the law itself is used as the cudgel of a dominant group against a dominated group.

I don't believe the rule of law is absolute and inviolable. After all, the holocaust was legal.

To them, it then becomes more a question of what tactics advance each group's interests than what are "acceptable"/lawful.

This to me just sounds Machiavellian and kind of evil to me to be honest. I'm fine with someone being self-interested in their personal or economic reality but for the political process... or when it comes to violence this is obviously horrible. I know you understand this so I don't know why you're presenting a view that you've probably rejected.

Honestly, if a black man or a white man came up to me and told me "ya know, I'm really only interested in my own racial/ethnic community and I couldn't give a **** what happens to anyone else" I absolutely wouldn't engage in dialogue with this person. Even if a poor person came up to me and claimed he only cared about poor people.... that's not how society works.

So, your cartoonish rendering of your opponent's position is imo a function of your inability to see their perspective not any inherent absurdity of the perspective itself.

Please enlighten me as to how destroying a TGI Fridays helps dismantle systemic racism. It's completely nonsensical as far as I'm concerned and I haven't heard of any remotely reasonable connection between destroying local businesses and establishing racial justice/racial equality.

Fine, if you don't want to go there, but those of us who don't see a level playing field to begin with are not insane in not seeing what you're seeing as a means to reset it.

For one, I don't see a level playing field. I think it's a straw man often attributed to conservatives that they see a "level playing field" for everyone out there. Absolutely not the case. I'd be happy to address these issues but through a different format than destroying local communities and wreaking havoc on already oppressed class (i.e. the entry level or low wage worker.)

If I'm reading you right you're comparing the riots today to the Boston tea party? This is a bad comparison for many reasons but before I go into them I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you right.

It doesn't make sense to me how people can support destroying businesses which had nothing to do with Floyd's death or mistreatment towards blacks by police in general.



It’s simple perversion. You can justify violence, destruction of property, and making a mockery of a valid protest by invoking some abstract idea from the recesses of your skull.

I'm sympathetic to calls for more transparency among police or addressing racial issues and how police interact with a certain community. I'm fine with abstract ideas; abstract ideas can be discussed and they can be fun to discuss.

That’s the irony of it. If we are to blame institutions, it was the State that murdered Floyd, not the private citizen. Yet here we have people destroying the property and livelihoods of fellow Americans.

NOS, by burning down a TGI Fridays you're fighting capitalism which in turn helps dismantle systemic racism. It's a nuanced argument - you need a college degree to understand.

Read my first post in the thread. I said that there's blame on both sides. The reason I focused on the looting is, well, because much of the commentary here is actually pro-looting. I've already been over this with you, Streetlight.

Maybe it's because of people like you, who, instead of highlighting police violence against protests, the arresting of journalists, the inflammatory language used by a certain fuckwit President and so on, the first thing you post about is fucking Target. You're part of the very problem you've identified.

If the forum was 100% pro-cop I'd be challenging them. I'm challenging you - and people like you who support the rioting - because you're insane. I ended our conversation because I can't really reason with someone who supports complete anarchy and burning everything down and doesn't care about the people harmed. It's about making a statement, I get it.

But I also don't feel that in a situation where the law itself is corrupted that tactical violence against powerful interests, including corporate interests, is necessarily unjustified.

By "the law" do you mean the institution of law enforcement or the written law? Regardless, I don't see how local businesses - even powerful ones like Wal-Mart - have anything to do with what Chauvin did to Floyd.

You can make a utilitarian argument that weighs the material loss of large companies (like Target) against the gain of systemic change that reduces levels of violence by security forces against minorities.

Ok, so how many Targets and sporting good stores and bars do we need to destroy before we've attained systemic change? Maybe I should be doing some looting! Apparently I would just be assisting racial equality and combating systemic injustice.

And you can make an inferential argument that draws a chain of causation from injury to powerful interests to political change.

Is this change going to go in your direction or will it cause a conservative backlash? All I know is that the rioters have turned a substantial portion of the country less sympathetic to the movement and more concerned with personal safety from rioters.

But the more important question to focus on is how do we get the police (and others) in the US to stop feeling like they have a licence to brutalize and mistreat minorities (and the poor and homeless, I might add).

Now this is a good question, and I can tell you that throwing molotov cocktails or assaulting police officers and destoying their vehicles is DEFINITELY not going elicit the response you're hoping for. You're not going to get a more compassionate police force by intimidating them. I support body cameras and transparency. Maybe encourage the creation of programs where cops go into these inner city neighborhoods and maybe coach basketball or involve themselves in the community somewhere.

Not focusing on that makes it look like you're not interested in what's significant here.

I'm interested in both sides of the problem but in this thread commentators are like 100% on one side here with many commentators actually supporting the destruction of property and assault of business owners. It's completely absurd. If everyone was 100% pro-cop I'd be arguing with them.

Because police brutality is directed at people and "lawless rioting" is directed at property and guess which one I care about

Would you like it if you spent years saving up to start your own business and establish your own source of income only to see it burned down by rioters? This is what happened to a bar that was owned by a black fireman who spent his life saving up for it. People are out of work now due to their workplaces being destroyed and communities are being destroyed by these rioters.

If you want to treat police like they're all monsters I could just take the other side and treat the protesters like they're all murdering business owners, looting stores, and assaulting police officers and civilians. They've got assaults on camera.... if you want to play it that way we can play it that way.

Why not just make it simple and condemn police brutality while also condemning lawless rioting?

No, that's the metaphor I'm going to use to towards who are burning down stores and assaulting business owners who try to defend their stores. The protests themselves are fine and warranted.

Billionare wealth soared during COVID, and you think the loss of a Target is the issue? Tell me another kneeslapper.

I never said it was THE issue, I'm saying it's AN issue.

But then again, it's not an issue for you or me. We haven't been put out of work because our workplace has been destroyed. We aren't responsible for feeding their child or paying their bills - that's their own problem to deal with. Maybe in your race to revolutionize the system and destroy capitalism try not stepping on the necks of some of America's most vulnerable workers by making their situation even worse than it already is.

Go put more lower wage workers out of jobs by destroying their workplaces, they can always go loot another store. You're really standing up well for civilization here. Stickin' it to the man.

There are 'few other options' because America is a systemically shit place

there are 'few other options' for entry level worker because a) they don't have many skills or certifications and b) we're in the year of coronavirus which has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.

but congratulations on putting more of this country's lower skilled, entry level, and vulnerable population out of work. who cares if they have one less source of income? that's their problem to deal with now - not yours or mine. you really stuck it to the man here. racial equality has been solved and the CEO of target now supports afro-socialism and dissolving the police force.

And you think this is because what? Because people burned down a Target? You think that's why people have 'few other options'?

...because many of them are sales associates at a target. have you ever worked as a sales associate in retail? it's an entry level job.

In any case no one is really getting hired right now. They likely out of work because their workplace was destroyed. There are consequences for actions. Delivery companies which may have been already struggling now have one less customer.

If I could pick either fascists or centrists to be all collectively drowned at sea, I'd go with centrists, because at least then everyone would know who the enemy is.

nice to know that i'm talking to a reasonable person here.

Yeah, sorry, I 'don't trust' people whose first instinct is to defend Target in the wake of all that's happened.

Go back and read my post above the Target one.

All those minimum wage, non-heatlhcare covered jobs Oh NO.

Who do you think gets hired for these jobs? It's entry level workers with likely very few other options. Our unemployment rate is absurdly high and you seem to have no problem adding to it as long as it's minimum wage jobs or lower wage jobs.... it's like impossible to reason with you because you just don't care about these individuals who are out of work now. You're just hyper focused on trying to hurt the elite.

You do realize target is made up of individuals, right? And that many of those individuals are the front-line, entry level workers who likely live paycheck to paycheck or near to it and are now out of work? And you do realize that consumers may need to pay more for goods now? But none of this matters to you, we need to burn the corporations now. It's just a matter of principle, I get it.



I don't see where you're going with this.

Destroying the property of a multibillion dollar company that stole employee wages is hardly "violence"

Yeah, keep punching up. The CEO of Target and the board of directors will really get the message now. Meanwhile, you've got all the (presumably lower or lower middle class) entry-level target workers out of a job and the people of the community have one less place to shop and will likely need to travel further now and possibly pay more elsewhere. But we showed the rich!

Seems to me the only reasonable position on this is obviously to be shocked and upset by the Floyd murder, upset about police brutality, but also upset by the rioter's destruction and their targeting of innocent businesses as well as business owners which had nothing to do with the murder. I see both sides at fault here and I don't trust people who focus solely on one side of the problem.

I just don't know of any capitalist theorists who would present capitalism this way. I know of many who would argue that some degree of competition is good and necessary for capitalism, but is different from demanding every company have equal market share and equal revenue.

Peter Thiel in "Zero to One" makes an interesting case where he basically said he tried to avoid competition and instead just find a niche that no one else was doing. I think there's a genuine debate to be had over this topic even among capitalists.

I wouldn't agree with this conception of capitalism. It seems way too strict and unrealistic.

It would imply that in one given industry - lets say the restaurant industry - each separate company (McDonalds, BK, Wendys, all the way up to the world class restaurants) would receive both an equal share of the revenue and of the market which just doesn't make sense. That's not how things work in reality.

Note that capitalism involves a free market with multiple equal players. That is not what we have in many cases in our glorious new global economy. Neoliberalism developed as liberals become the apologists for oligarchy.

Equal in regard to market share? Revenue? Or do you just mean things ought to be competitive?

That’s true about personal needs, but are personal needs important enough for the general health of the community and future wellbeing?

You mean if everyone was to just follow their personal needs would that be enough for a health community and ensure well being? Is that what you're asking? I'd say not necessarily. I feel like what we're missing here is culture. There's always a culture involved, and that culture can be helpful or harmful to ensuring those things you mention.

The state as you define it might belong in the background creating and enforcing laws but that idea of the state is a political tool, or mechanism, for the managing of the real state, which is the population at large.

You're saying the "real" state is the population?

The Australian Aboriginal culture is regarded as the oldest culture in the world and yet I don’t imagine they survived all that time through the concept of individuality. But it serves our modern culture to believe in the idea of individuality, it drives the economy.

My question is still, if we can, which should we choose?

Yes, in ancient times you couldn't just go off into the woods and form your own empire or even really survive. Of course community is needed - we all exist in communities for the most part unless someone wants to self-isolate, but I don't think that's really what's meant by "individualism." When I think "individualism" I more think freedom within a society - especially societies which strongly encourage its members to conform to a certain mold (think religious societies or maybe military societies or others).

Your question - which should we choose - is a good one, and it's debated. I see the two choices as on a spectrum and I think we likely need to find some middle ground. I think culture should exist it's fine if its pushes some messages, but ultimately the individual should be free to make his/her own choices (within reason) and be free to break from or challenge the culture if they wish. The individual should almost always be able to challenge the collective. The sole exception I can think of to this would be military societies where it's not acceptable for, say, a Private to challenge a General.

I would have thought selfishness was the defining neo-liberal notion. Not that selfishness was not present in classical liberalism, but that in neo-liberalism it is elevated to the core virtue.

We might need to define our terms here . Plenty of capitalists (myself included) will agree that humans are by and large self-interested, but this is different from "selfish." "Selfish" has a more moral flavor to it in that it implies that someone is overly self-interested or greedy to the point where money or power is all they want. If we go with this definition then I don't agree that capitalism views selfishness as a virtue or a facet of human nature.

Capitalism really just lays down the rules; it doesn't seem a fundamental transformation of the human condition like communism does. I view capitalism as largely amoral.

Like @fdrake I'm probably some sort of shoddy Marxist. Societies are always trying to shape ""human nature", and to some extent they are successful, for better and for worse, of which there are many examples.

This seems reasonable - sure, societies and cultures often try to shape people, fair enough. Personally, and you might disagree, but I wouldn't say that capitalism itself is trying to transform human nature.

By the way, shaping and trying to transform human nature may very well be a good thing. I'm not treating it as if it's necessarily a negative yet here. I am however starkly opposed to the vision that Marxism has in mind for human nature.

I've found that a reasonably tolerant, reasonably stable, reasonably affluent society produces reasonably good results, for me, at least. An intolerant, unstable, and poor society is likely to produce more of the same. Virtuous cycles and vicious cycles beget more virtuous and vicious cycles.

Seems reasonable insofar as we don't completely abandon some level of personal responsibility if we're evaluating the people within these cultures.

Marxists will also quarrel with the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature". Clearly, and irrefutably, we are a species which manifests various characteristics -- just like Canadian geese, grey wolves, and porpoises do. In that way there is certainly "human nature". We use very complex language, for instance, and we use it a lot. We have a central nervous system with certain characteristics -- emotional, cognitive, and sensory capabilities. More "human nature".

I understand that there is a wide variety of people and cultures out there. One thing that I have noticed and that I asked fdrake was about this notion of family and personal attachment: Namely, across cultures and societies parents seem to grow a special attachment to their children and children to their parents. Maybe after that comes loyalty to the community, and then the state, then the country, etc. etc. This is a barrier to Marxism, which is an internationalist doctrine which seeks to unity humanity as a collective.

Personally, I do believe in a human nature. I believe men are not angels, and despite however advanced we get as a culture we'll just have to deal with that fact that people will think and do bad things. I'm not saying that "humanity is evil" or "fallen" or whatever. I'd also group family attachments in that human nature category, and I think the costs for breaking this one whether it's through raising children collectively or dissolving the trust between families in an attempt to strengthen loyalty to the collective are really quite severe.

People have better experiences, behave better, behave more peacefully, in a society which meets basic human requirements and affords available rich cultural experiences (like food, clothing, shelter, care, and the opportunity and means for self expression).

So maybe one should support a universal basic income as opposed to trying to go full Marxist and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I don't know your actual positions so this point isn't aimed specifically at you, but we can address these issues in ways besides breaking down the fundamentals our society and making radical, coercive changes.