Clarify your point, in that case.

The point of my post was to have you think about your response. Try answering my questions, see what you think of your answers. No need to post them.

Here they are again:
Do you like the idea of their being penalties for other folk? Or do you think we should leave it up to other people to decide for themselves the utility of following traffic rules?

Do you support the removal of penalties so that we may each decide how to behave on the road?

Or do you think that we ought coerce other people - not you - into stopping at red lights?

More generally, are you happy for other people to also be guided by your principle:

When it seems useful to me, sure. — Tzeentch

Are you happy to have other people follow the traffic rules only when it is useful to them?

I hope that in answering the questions you might think about the issue in a slightly different way.

You don't win arguments by repetition. — Tzeentch

The argument I was referencing belonged to Banno. In none of the post you quoted was I making an argument.

You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try. — Pro Hominem

That's what you keep telling yourself.

The truth is I hit the nail on the head in my original posts, and you know it. You have difficulty swallowing that pill, so your reaction is to get angry, misrepresent my point and demonize me so you can tell yourself you don't have to listen to my ideas.

Here, I'll repeat them for you:

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. — Tzeentch

[Government is] a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence. — Tzeentch

Governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, [governments are], at their basis, [...] no more legitimate than a despot — Tzeentch

Finally, and most importantly:

And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end. — Tzeentch

Now, that last sentence obviously didn't make it into a discussion about socialism by accident. That sentence is exactly about you.

Everything you've provided so far shows you have a great deal of trouble accepting the fact that people have different views than you, and that you would happily use coercion to force them to act in accordance to your beliefs. You're little tyrants, masquerading as philanthropists.

I like to think philosophy and psychology go hand in hand, and the gaggle of angry socialists on this forum being shown a mirror never fails to provide some interesting cases.

Now go on and reflect, as will I. I'm done conversing with you three.

I was raised in a upper middle class home and I used be a socialist and for much of my life I was on the left. Financially speaking everything was always taken care of for me and in seeing the wealth around me I didn't understand at a young age why poverty or homeless people had to exist. On top of that, I worked some crappy, low wage jobs with bad bosses which further solidified my allegiance to the left. My thinking was in a country as advanced and wealthy as the US, why do we still have poverty and homelessness? I was thinking about the big picture and principles first, and myself last. I also had no experience with poor people. They were just problems to be solved by giving them, as a collective, a certain amount of money or resources.

Somewhere along the line my thinking become more bottom-up. Instead of thinking about vast systemic changes to eliminate poverty, I started studying personal finance and decisions which could be made on an individual level. — BitconnectCarlos

I had the exact opposite experience. I was raised in a dirt poor home (but didn't realize it at the time), picked up libertarian ideals from friends on the internet and my own teenage anti-authoritarianism, thought that I was the smart capable straight-A student who was going to knock life out of the park... and then fell flat on my face upon reaching adulthood, blamed myself, blamed personal (non-systematic) bad luck like the crappy 20 year old beater cars (which were "normal" cars as far as my upbringing had taught me) constantly breaking down and needing to be replaced (because a replacement cost less than the repair), I thought I was just an unlucky "kid" who wasn't awesome enough to overcome that misfortune.

It wasn't until I was about in my 30s that I started researching why my life was such a failure compared to "everyone else" and discovered... that I had never in my life been below the median income, much less the poverty line. That the majority of people in the country had even more shitty lives than me. That didn't mean that my life had in fact been charmed and easy, it was still shit, I was still renting bedrooms in other people's houses and driving ancient hunks of junk and so on, but the statistics said that most people were even worse off than that; that my meager slow savings toward escaping that life were amazing richest compared to the zero savings that almost everybody else had. Eventually I graduated to owning my own... tiny 400sqft trailer in a run-down trailer park, thanks to finally making "fantastic" money better than 75% of the country... yet still, only the average (mean) personal income for America.

That's when I started to realize that the problem wasn't me, that I wasn't a fuck-up or just running on bad personal luck, I was beating the hell out of the odds, considering my background, and how the entire system is stacked against everybody. I was making more money and managing it better than the vast majority of the country, but still trailer trash with barely a sliver of hope of someday not being that. That's a sign that there are major systemic problems, not just a bunch of personal failures.

What about Banno's argument, are you going to get to it?

Do you like the idea of their being penalties for other folk? Or do you think we should leave it up to other people to decide for themselves the utility of following traffic rules? — Banno

Do I like the idea of coercion? No. That much should be clear.

I do appreciate that, as I have stated earlier, it can be a necessary evil at times.

Do you support the removal of penalties so that we may each decide how to behave on the road? — Banno

I guess not, though I am mainly undecided. I could consider this the type of protection against direct physical harm a part of the 'minimum' a state should provide, much like how the state protects people against other forms of physical violence to them or their property.

However, don't most people follow traffic rules because they are convinced of the usefulness of doing so, rather than the penalty for not following them? I don't stop at a red light when there's no traffic to be seen, and I have no issue with people using their own judgement to do the same.

More generally, are you happy for other people to also be guided by your principle: "When it seems useful to me, sure." — Banno

Generally, yes. Though, there are exceptions, mostly pertaining to direct physical violence, and we can talk about those exceptions.

The point of my post was to have you think about your response. Try answering my questions, see what you think of your answers. No need to post them. — Banno

I was promised some ultimate refutation of my position.

And to clarify, that position can best be summarized as:

I consider government to be a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence. — Tzeentch

And therefore:

Keeping governments small with as little influence over individuals' private goings-on should be an active process. — Tzeentch

It might be worth giving some more consideration to the place of ideology.

Every person possess some kind of ideology, the question has to do with the concrete nature of ideology.
— @JerseyFlight

Maybe in some vague, general sense everyone possesses some ideology or way of viewing the world, but not everyone is equally ideologically possessed. — BitconnectCarlos

Ideology is a pretty central to issues of law and culture - see Law and Ideology for a bit of background. Of special interest is the move from the Marxist idea that one participates in an ideology unwillingly, to Zizek's description of wilful participation.

For our purposes here it might be worth first seeing ideology not as something one possess, as you suggest, but rather as a way of seeing; a looking-glass through which one interprets and understands social practices.

Doubtless there are those who will deny that they have an ideology. I'd consider that an inability to see themselves as embedded in a society. My critique of Tzeentch follows that line.

I was promised some ultimate refutation of my position. — Tzeentch

You'll have seen this:


Can you see the faces?

Suppose you come across someone who denies that there are faces in the drawing.

You point to various parts of the tree, saying "Look, here is an eye, there, a nose...", but to no avail. "That's just branches. There's no faces there".

Can yo offer an ultimate refutation of their position?

Can yo offer an ultimate refutation of their position? — Banno

Probably not.

But discourse such as this:

What a swift refutation. :lol: :up: — JerseyFlight

↪JerseyFlight
It's what I do. — Banno

Would get one's hopes up.

You were refuted. You just can't see it.

You were refuted. You just can't see it. — Banno

I didn't expect that. :lol: :lol: :rofl:

Ouch.

Doubtless there are those who will deny that they have an ideology. I'd consider that an inability to see themselves as embedded in a society. My critique of Tzeentch follows that line. — Banno

:rofl: :rofl:

Well done.

You were refuted. You just can't see it. — Banno

Let's be frank. You assumed my position was something other than it actually was, but you're now so deep into chest-bumping with your goons that you cannot back off anymore.

If there's any bite to your bark, I'll be waiting.

You think the fact you recognize other have rights, money and property renders your insistence on having your own rights, money and property unselfish? I don't think that works. — Ciceronianus the White

No, by saying that I "bite the bullet" on that one it means I accept your premise; I just don't view it as a negative. I'm fine accepting that there's a selfish component to my worldview: I value my property, money, and rights. In fact, I'd even go further and say that this quality is actually a positive. If you don't value your own, how are you going to value others stuff or rights?

I was just responding to what seemed be your negative implication towards selfishness or self-centeredness.

For our purposes here it might be worth first seeing ideology not as something one possess, as you suggest, but rather as a way of seeing; a looking-glass through which one interprets and understands social practices. — Banno

This is fine by me. What I was implying with the phrase "ideologically possessed" is the idea that ideas possess people. It's interesting to think about. I understand that we all have lenses through which we view the world through, but some of these lenses just don't allow any flexibility and are strongly dogmatic. Some of these lenses are all encompassing and completely grip the subject. That's what I mean by ideological possession. I just don't think it's fair to say a fanatical Nazi and your average, pragmatic non-political American are equally "ideologically possessed."

My parents came to this country in the 1940s, one as a prisoner of war, another as a migrant, both from Europe. They had no money. They never asked for a penny, got jobs, and bought their own home.

They would rather have been tortured than rely on the state. They looked down on those that relied on the state, there was a stigma to being on the social in those days. This attitude of self reliance has held me in good stead for a lifetime, i have not asked for help from anyone.

The more you give, the more dependancy you foster. Having said that, some people need help, some long term. Nothing is simple.

Make of that what you will. I have only voted socialist once in my life, when i was young.

... That's a sign that there are major systemic problems, not just a bunch of personal failures. — Pfhorrest

Good point.

I don't stop at a red light when there's no traffic to be seen, and I have no issue with people using their own judgement to do the same. — Tzeentch

That’s irresponsible because, if you look at driving like a skill, it forms a bad habit that puts yourself and other motorists at risk. Much of the mundane tasks in our lives are done on autopilot, so you’re basically training yourself (and your ‘autopilot’) badly. Again that’s irresponsible, which indicates an abuse of your freedom, and suggests that you’re not worthy of it.

Also, as I initially touched on, there’s the issue of who pays for the traffic lights, roadways, the land they occupy, etc. If they’re not paid for with taxation then you would have to pay a private party or parties in order to travel. Either way you have to pay.

That’s irresponsible because, if you look at driving like a skill, it forms a bad habit that puts yourself and other motorists at risk. Much of the mundane tasks in our lives are done on autopilot, so you’re basically training yourself (and your ‘autopilot’) badly. Again that’s irresponsible, which indicates an abuse of your freedom, and suggests that you’re not worthy of it. — praxis

I have no problem trusting in my own judgement. If you have trouble trusting in yours, then that problem lies with you. I encourage everyone to think for themselves and make their own decisions, rather than slavishly obey the rules without second thought.

Calling me unworthy of freedom based on the minimal interaction we've had seems rather silly, and it's hardly a decent way to start a conversation. Your earlier comment seemed reasonable enough, so why not continue in that way?

Also, as I initially touched on, there’s the issue of who pays for the traffic lights, roadways, the land they occupy, etc. If they’re not paid for with taxation then you would have to pay a private party or parties in order to travel. Either way you have to pay. — praxis

The issue doesn't lie with things or services costing money, the issue lies with forcing people to pay for them. It is easy to think of examples which are universally useful, like roads, a justice system, etc., but what of some counter examples? Where I live, a part of one's tax money goes to maintaining the properties of the royal family. Why is that normal? Or why is it normal to be forced to pay for the wars one's government decides to partake in?

I value freedom. Not wealth necessarily. I know there's no way of getting this message across, because you seem to have already decided I must be a terrible person for having different ideas.

One can be selfless without having to be forced by government.

I'll leave it at that. — Tzeentch

I value freedom as well.

Government can certainly restrict freedom. I think it's improper for it to do so in some cases. I also think that government should not spend money or resources it may acquire from us (e.g. through taxes) for certain purposes. As a rule (which is to say subject to certain exceptions), government shouldn't restrict our ability to, e.g., think, to communicate, to be religious or irreligious, to assemble, to travel. As a rule, government shouldn't spend money to, e.g., wage unjust wars, to oppress civil liberties. What government does can be objectionable, and should be opposed in that case.

I don't think it can be reasonably maintained, however, that government action to care for its citizens who don't have the financial resources to obtain essential medical services or are impoverished is objectionable in the same sense that government restricting the freedoms I mentioned or waging unjust wars is objectionable. So, I think that those who object to government taking such action (which as a practical matter would involve devoting resources obtained from some citizens to furthering such action) can't legitimately claim that they object to it to preserve civil liberties, freedom or prevent government from acting improperly.

No doubt there are those who think that the impoverished have only themselves to blame for their condition and governments should not assist them for that reason, but that's different from saying that it should not do so because it will restrict freedoms or violate claimed rights.

The only "right" which would be violated by such government action is a "right" to have and retain money and property, and the only "freedom" which would be restricted would be the "freedom" to keep others from sharing a part of it.

I'm not adverse to private property. I don't think all resources should be owned and controlled by the state. Neither do I think that government assistance to the impoverished is wrong, or that those that possess money and resources far beyond what they could need to live well and comfortably should in no case be required to contribute to such action by the government.

I think that those who claim they shouldn't be required to do so must accept, if they're honest, that they aren't engaged in a quest to ensure freedom and liberty. They're merely sanctioning a form of governance which will inevitably result in a substantial number of citizens being impoverished, and a far less substantial number who are wealthy. I understand that seems perfectly appropriate to some. I just think they shouldn't fool themselves by thinking that's the way it must be in a free society.

(In Hohfeldian terms, a liberty is something that you are not prohibited from doing. It is the negation of the obligation of a negation, and so it is equivalent to a permission. A claim, conversely, is a limit on others' liberty: it is something that it is forbidden to deny you, which is just to say that it is obligatory. A power is the second-order liberty to change who has what rights. And an immunity, conversely, is a limit on others' power, just as a claim is a limit on others' liberty.)

At first glance, one would think a maximally libertarian society would be one in which there were no claims at all (because every claim is a limit on someone else's liberty), and no powers at all (because powers at that point could only serve to increase claims, and so to limit liberties). But that would leave nobody with any claims against others using violence to establish authority in practice even if not in the abstract rules of justice, and no claims to hold anybody to their promises either making reliable cooperation nigh impossible. So it is necessary that liberties be limited at least by claims against such violence, and that people not be immune from the power to establish mutually agreed-upon obligations between each other in contracts.

But those claims and powers could themselves be abused, with those who violate the claim against such violence using that claim to protect themselves from those who would stop them, and those who would like for contracts not to require mutual agreement to leverage practical power over others to establish broader deontic power over them. So too those claims to property and powers to contract, which limit the unrestricted liberty and immunity that one would at first think would prevail in a maximally libertarian society, must themselves be limited as described above in order to better preserve that liberty.

Thanks for sharing your story.

I will say that for those who work within the system - that is, have a normal 9-5 job, pay rent, average salary, not much savings - my prognosis is poor. I've never trusted the system to magically help these people and boost them into the upper classes. I think of the system as more than just capitalism though, so we might differ there. In any case, the system doesn't reward you for saving. I wouldn't even count on the system to reward you for hard work at your 9-5, but who knows maybe it might for some people.

I've been in kind of an interesting place because while I was raised and grew up UMC, for the past 5-6 years I've been working with people from either poor, lower middle class, or maybe just normal middle class backgrounds. It's sometimes hard for me to tell the difference between normal middle class and lower middle class. I've always hidden my own background from my co-workers. No need to bring that up. It's been a super interesting experience though and I will say I've become more class conscious.

I know we've talked about your own personal situation before, and you know my advice if you want to live more comfortably. I'm not going to rehash it. Someone could honestly be pulling 6 figures and still be struggling in certain areas of the country, especially with debt. I do hope all is well with your situation though.

Calling me unworthy of freedom based on the minimal interaction we've had seems rather silly, and it's hardly a decent way to start a conversation. Your earlier comment seemed reasonable enough, so why not continue in that way? — Tzeentch

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit and for the meager benefit of arriving at your destination a few seconds or minutes early. There's nothing silly about that.

Living in society requires cooperation. Ideally, the cooperation is mutually beneficial. In order for the cooperation to be mutually beneficial, the more autonomous a citizen is the more responsible they would have to be. If a citizen just wants to freeload and take advantage of the cooperative nature of a society they can be as irresponsible as they like, at least until their freedom is curtailed.

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit — praxis

I fail to understand how using one's own eyes to see is a dangerous habit. I wish more people would engage in it.

Living in society requires cooperation. Ideally, the cooperation is mutually beneficial. In order for the cooperation to be mutually beneficial, the more autonomous a citizen is the more responsible they would have to be. If a citizen just wants to freeload and take advantage of the cooperative nature of a society they can be as irresponsible as they like, at least until their freedom is curtailed. — praxis

Okay, I am mostly on board with this. Freedom requires individuals to take personal responsibility, sure. In view of this, how do you look at the fact that individuals do not choose the society they are born in, nor do they choose to be born in the first place?

In modern society, one of the jobs of the government is to stop people from stamping all over your ability to live freely. I'm not going to tell you all that you already know, you are able to imagine how other individuals, businesses, groups or whathaveyou can infringe upon your rights in such a way that you mightn't have the resources to do anything about by yourself. Assuming you can agree with that, the question becomes whether poverty and protection from poverty don't fall under a similar category.

Socialism (within democracy/capitalism) are outcome-based protections of many liberties. To contextualise the need for protection in the first place, I have to refer to the non-government forces within our society that are simply bigger than the average citizen by such a magnitude that they really don't have any choices to be making in the first place. The biggest of which is capitalism itself, which certainly coerces you into working, decides your worth and whether you're even valuable enough to be
getting paid in the first place.

Poverty itself deprives the individual of freedom, one's options are limited down to a point where they don't have options. Maybe that wouldn't be the case for you, for whatever reason, but surely you can see it being that way for others.

The other side of things is that as just an individual, without the government, your options don't make any difference on the level of how capitalism functions. You are totally helpless to anything to challenge the system by yourself. If the system itself is unjust, your only option is to just live with it. There are strong arguments that can be made for how that is already the case today but actually the government isn't doing much about it and we can clearly see that you have absolutely no way to do anything about it by yourself - as with the rest of us. Thus your only recourse is to use something like the government if you wish to challenge that system.

In other words, you are certainly going to be coerced either way. Capitalism doesn't coerce you by forcing you to do something, it coerces you by restricting you to such few options that to say you aren't be coerced into choosing one of them seems like semantics. In a sense, freedom is afforded to you based on your success within capitalism, socialism is about recognising a universal human right to such freedoms. Do you not see yourself as being stuck within two bad situations?

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit
— praxis

I fail to understand how using one's own eyes to see is a dangerous habit. I wish more people would engage in it. — Tzeentch

I won't argue the point other than to show the results of a two-minute search. Study shows more than two people are killed every day by red light running.

I apologize for my earlier tactlessness, by the way.

Okay, I am mostly on board with this. Freedom requires individuals to take personal responsibility, sure. In view of this, how do you look at the fact that individuals do not choose the society they are born in, nor do they choose to be born in the first place? — Tzeentch

I can't tell what the point of the question is. I'll say that we're a social species and as such are born with moral intuitions. We're also largely shaped by whatever society we happen to be raised in and part of that shaping is developing a moral framework, which is based on our moral intuitions. There are moral frameworks, for example, that prioritize the moral intuition of liberty vs oppression, such as Libertarianism. Other frameworks favor other moral intuitions.

I can't tell what the point of the question is. I'll say that we're a social species and as such are born with moral intuitions. We're also largely shaped by whatever society we happen to be raised in and part of that shaping is developing a moral framework, which is based on our moral intuitions. There are moral frameworks, for example, that prioritize the moral intuition of liberty vs oppression, such as Libertarianism. Other frameworks favor other moral intuitions. — praxis

When discussing the responsibilities we may or may not have towards society, I think it is an essential question to ask how we ended up in that position.

Considering the fact that we do not choose the society we live in, what responsibilities towards it can we truly be said to have, other than the ones we take up voluntarily?

The biggest of which is capitalism itself, which certainly coerces you into working, decides your worth and whether you're even valuable enough to be
getting paid in the first place. — Judaka

If we look at a dictionary, coercion is the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. Something needs a mind to be able to coerce - people can coerce, government can coerce. An animal could coerce.

If we were to plane crash onto an island with fruits and natural resources we'd likely want to survive, but the island isn't coercing us into gathering those resources in order to survive. You can choose to lay down and die or beg from others.

Capitalism doesn't coerce you by forcing you to do something, it coerces you by restricting you to such few options that to say you aren't be coerced into choosing one of them seems like semantics. — Judaka

While I don't agree with your use of the word coercion here, I get what you're saying here. I agree with the gist of your argument, but I feel like your real target is poverty and not capitalism. Poor people under Marxism are just as limited, if not more. Plenty of capitalists support a universal basic income or some sort of welfare requirement, myself included. Capitalism doesn't demand no government compensation for anyone at any time. Milton Friedman, one of the major capitalist thinkers in recent history, supported a universal basic income.

-

I wonder, was Banno's assertion regarding your ignorance accurate? His claim was that you could not see the fact that you had been refuted. How could we prove whether this was the case?

That's a question we might subject to some useful analysis.

See the tree example above. Has a view been refuted when its protagonist still adheres to it? Has it been refuted when most folk reject it? Has it been refuted only if there is a proof that it is erroneous? Then what is to count as proof?

It's a mistake to suppose that such issues can be settled. If you can't see the faces, then they are not there. The best you might do is to pretend to see them in order to appease the delusional folk who can see them.

That's the path a sociopath takes when pretending to care.

I suspect many of us were able to follow your argument and clear refutation of Tzeentch's position. My point in raising this question to Tzeentch, is to get him to move beyond the ignorance you reference by having him more carefully consider your position. He is continuing to argue a position that has been clearly refuted using the postion's own premises.