So either the sees he refutation, or he does not.

If he sees it then the issue becomes one of psychology rather than philosophy. He's nailed his flag, and will stand by it. Further conversation is pointless.

If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. But that is a rare thing.

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. — Tzeentch

If a young person were trying to develop their reasoning skills and learn to think philosophically and I wanted to show them a counterexample, a mind clouded by dogma, this post would do nicely. "Government = bad". The end. That's all you've got. The difference between what I and others are saying and what you are saying is that we actually have articulable reasons for our beiiefs. I can cite history, law, science, ethical theory, and a whole range of other fields to support the general claims I'm making. You have not, because you cannot. You just believe what you believe because it easier to do that than to think, and because its easier to whine about "your" money than to acknowledge that people who enjoy the benefits of a community have a responsibility to that community.

I knew talking sense to you was a waste of time, but I have just enough optimism left to hope that maybe there's some way to reach people like you. It certainly didn't happen here, but who knows? Maybe one day you will see something that makes the coin drop and you'll become a better person. Let's all hope so.

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

I've taken the liberty to modify your question a bit. Hope you don't mind.

We could liken the individual faces in Banno's face/tree to moral intuitions. Some may stand out, like liberty/oppression, and others like care/harm, fairness/cheating or loyalty/betrayal may fade into the background, and I suppose that we can't take responsibility for what we deny.

its easier to whine about "your" money — Pro Hominem

These scare quotes prompted me to think: perhaps a fruitful approach would be to ask him what exactly is it that makes his money HIS (or anybody’s anything THEIRS). I think he would be surprised to learn that socialists are very much in favor of people keeping what is rightfully theirs and not having it taken from them by force. They just have a deeper understanding of what rightfully belong to whom, and a broader understanding of what constitutes force, such that it is the capitalists who are taking things that rightfully belong to people by force, and state redistribution of wealth is rough restitution of those many widespread crimes, in lieu of actually being able to prevent them from happening.

I wouldn't have called capitalism my "target" because I have no interest in dismantling capitalism and I am not supporting communism or marxism. It's just a matter of recognising that the government needs to be a counterforce to the natural tendencies of capitalism if you want to avoid hell on Earth. Socialism is just one kind of counterforce, alongside worker protections, protecting the rights of businesses, intellectual property and etc.

I think whether nature can "coerce" is actually an interesting debate but it doesn't really matter too much. It is pointless to point out that you are being forced to drink water to survive but if you refuse to do it, you will be met with violence, just violence of a different kind. People are definitely coerced by capitalism, which doesn't require popular support to survive because if you don't play by the rules then you just starve right? Someone born into a city without a plot of land doesn't even have the option to "live off the land". That's not part of the argument I made, consider it a tangent, I am not opposed to capitalism because it coerces you. I am just saying that if your position is "I hate people interfering with my business", don't neglect how non-government forces are definitely going to interfere with your life and the government is actually the only thing stopping it from being a disaster in many cases.

Justice, fairness, human rights, freedom - that's how I think of socialism. I certainly look for that within capitalism and I view attempts to dismantle capitalism as reckless and unrealistic. Maybe in the future things will be different, new technology and circumstances but not right now.

There's a fine line between personal responsibility and recognising systemic issues. If you spend outside of your means, you don't save money, you don't try to maximise your income and so on - there are consequences for that. People shouldn't try to totally blame capitalism because even with socialism, you are still going to experience financial troubles if you are financially irresponsible. I think it's even okay to have an inherently contradictory position here. To argue for both personal responsibility and systemic change, to say it's both your fault as well as not your fault. That's just kind of how nuance works right? I think we agree on this?

Moral obligations to do what? To care for one's fellow man? On a personal level I can get behind that. But I don't need to be coerced into doing that.

If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. — Banno

Let's go. I'm waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is, and if it were to result in a refutation of my position then I am genuinely interested.

But what I think happened is you mistook my position as anarchist or 'all coercion is unjustifiable'. Or, as put it:

"Government = bad". The end. That's all you've got. — Pro Hominem

what I think happened is you mistook my position as anarchist or 'all coercion is unjustifiable'. — Tzeentch

Nobody could mistake you for an anarchist, and that’s the problem. Anarchists support violence (if at all) only in defense against the imposition of power over others. In supporting capitalism, you must support violence in defense of existing power structures (e.g. in keeping property concentrated in the hands of those who own more than they need to use, against those who need to use more than they own).

By such definitions, against what does socialism support violence? :chin:

Justice, fairness, human rights, freedom - that's how I think of socialism. — Judaka

Interesting, I have a few questions about what socialism constitutes for you.

Under socialism, would someone be able to start their own independent business, say, without the approval of a council of workers? How does investment work under socialism? Can someone just day trade for a living? What does socialism say about speculators? What if someone doesn't want to get a "real" job under socialism, what happens then? Certainly this didn't fly in the USSR.

Personally, I'm just fundamentally opposed to any system which forces you into a normal job in the name of social cohesion. I've never been entirely sure what socialism says about entrepreneurship or side hustles.

I stipulated that I was talking about socialism within democratic capitalism, I thought you knew that given you were talking about UBI and welfare. It is funny though, socialism is such a stupid word to have two such separate meanings that are both talked about in similar contexts. I would never say such kind words about socialism as an alternative to capitalism.

Ok, this might just be a cultural difference (you're Australian, right?) In the States, as far as I can tell, socialism is pretty much always used as an alternative to capitalism. It means dismantling capitalism. If you want to go more to the left you'd just say "we need more social programs" or "we need stronger social programs."

I don't consider UBI or welfare "socialism." I think true socialism is ownership by the proletariat.

Moral obligations to do what? To care for one's fellow man? On a personal level I can get behind that. But I don't need to be coerced into doing that. — Tzeentch

Apparently you do, at least in the case of practicing good driving habits.

I believe I just mixed up my terms, I think you are simply correct here and my use is inappropriate.

Apparently you do, at least in the case of practicing good driving habits. — praxis

You seem to be completely hung up on this driving thing, huh?

Well then, practice your slavish obedience.

It’s a handy example and I think neatly illustrates the differences in our views or moral frameworks. I wouldn’t say that one is better than the other, to be clear.

By such definitions, against what does socialism support violence? :chin: — Tzeentch

Anarchism is a form of socialism (the original form, actually), so I already answered that for the most part. The difference between anarchism and statist forms of socialism is just the state, which thinks it’s the only one who gets to use violence and that it is justified in using violence to prevent anyone else from doing so, or from otherwise disobeying it.

Anarchism is a form of socialism (the original form, actually), so I already answered that for the most part. The difference between anarchism and statist forms of socialism is just the state, which thinks it’s the only one who gets to use violence and that it is justified in using violence to prevent anyone else from doing so, or from otherwise disobeying it. — Pfhorrest

If we consider capitalism a form of violence, surely governments that take the belongings of their subjects as a means of achieving their goals can be considered violent, no?

I think you are simply correct here and my use is inappropriate. — Judaka

This is the very foundation of high level thought. What it manifests, above all else, is that one is overcoming the limitations imposed by the psychological self. It stands as a far greater challenge than any syllogism.

If we consider capitalism a form of violence, surely governments that take the belongings of their subjects as a means of achieving their goals can be considered violent, no? — Tzeentch

In your anarchy-land why will people form governments?

If we consider capitalism a form of violence, surely governments that take the belongings of their subjects as a means of achieving their goals can be considered violent, no? — Tzeentch

Taking things from people is violent, sure, but it's that "belongings" that does all the important work here.


Alice comes along and takes something from Bob (by force, because Bob doesn't want to give it up) to give it to Charlie. That is unquestionably an act of violence. But is it good, legitimate violence (if we accept, which you and I both seem to, that there is such a thing), or is it bad, illegitimate violence?

Well, if the thing belonged to Charlie, then Alice was righting a wrong: Bob was withholding Charlie's property from him, and Alice made him give it back. That is good, legitimate violence.

On the other hand, if the thing belonged to Bob, then Alice was committing a wrong: Bob was using his own property when Alice wrongly took it and gave it to Charlie. That's bad, illegitimate violence.


Saying what belongs to who is basically another way of saying who has what rights to what, and so what violence is justified (if any is) in the defense of those rights.


The dispute between capitalists and socialists isn't overall about whether using violence is ever legitimate, but about what rightfully belongs to whom, and so which violence is legitimate and which is illegitimate.

Socialists generally say that capital rightly belongs to those who use it, so houses belong to people who live in them, businesses belong to the people who operate them, etc; and anyone else, who doesn't live or work or otherwise use that capital, claiming the right to exclude the people who do live and work and otherwise use it, and thus the right to use force to do so, are committing bad, illegitimate violence, against which other violence is therefore good and legitimate, as an act of defense.

Capitalists, of course, disagree, and think that one can legitimately own someone else's home or place or work etc, and that attempts to prevent that owner from excluding people from it as he pleases are bad, illegitimate acts of violence, while the enforcement of that exclusion is good, legitimate violence.

↪god must be atheist

Eleanor Roosevelt was never an American president.

What responsibilities does a slave have? — praxis

Boy, was I ever stupid. I don't know the first name of Prez Roosevelt. Dwight? Milhouse? And who was this Eleanor person? the private educator of Helen Keller?

I am ignorant, but I may not be stupid.

Slaves have responsibilities. They need to do their jobs. They need to follow orders. They need to do what they are told.I think slaves have the most stringent and binding responsibilities of all.

Let's go. — Tzeentch

Here's the full quote:

If he sees it then the issue becomes one of psychology rather than philosophy. He's nailed his flag, and will stand by it. Further conversation is pointless.

If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. But that is a rare thing. — Banno

The bolding is for you.

...perhaps a fruitful approach would be to ask him what exactly is it that makes his money HIS (or anybody’s anything THEIRS). — Pfhorrest

In the Privilege thread there was mention of The Origins of “Privilege”, and interview with Peggy McIntosh. McIntosh talks of Tal Fortgang not wanting to see himself systemically. It's an interesting analysis, and one I think we can apply here. Tzeentch does not see that wealth and property are social entities. He speaks as if they were somehow inherent, inalienable characteristics of his self, when they are better described as things that others allow him. As points out, Tzeentch fetishises the myth of the individual.

Not long ago the forums had an infestation of Christians. We seem now to have become a nest for sovereign citizens... a term they use for themselves entirely without awareness of its irony. There are reasons sovereign citizens are almost exclusively white middle class males; these are the people who have the least capacity to see themselves in ideological terms.

The way to progress the discussion is not to talk to Tzeentch, but to talk about Tzeentch.

What a cop-out.

Boy, was I ever stupid. — god must be atheist

Don't be too hard on yourself, trolling isn't as easy as most seem to think. I have faith in you though, so dust yourself off, stand up straight, and go get 'em, tiger!

Slaves have responsibilities. ... They need to do what they are told. — god must be atheist

Are they free to not do what they're told?

So we have established that governance is coercion, or 'violence', if you will.

But is it good, legitimate violence (if we accept, which you and I both seem to, that there is such a thing), or is it bad, illegitimate violence? — Pfhorrest

I'm not so sure there is something as legitimate violence. I consider all types of violence to be undesirable and inherently problematic. But it seems sometimes some amount of violence is better than the alternative. I wouldn't go so far as to say that legitimizes it.

Violence is about forcing one's will upon others (or hurting others; this is why I prefer the term 'coercion'), and there is no just basis for that. My will is no better than yours. The will of the group is no better than the will of the individual. A government's will no better than that of their subjects.

A political system that cannot recognize this, and instead sees violence as instrumental; a tool to be used to achieve it's goals based on it's own conceptions of right and wrong, I can only consider as tyrannical and deeply flawed.

Before you mention it, I am not saying capitalism is any better. In fact, all '-isms' seems to be deeply concerned with telling other people what to do.

I'm not so sure there is something as legitimate violence. I consider all types of violence to be undesirable and inherently problematic. But it seems sometimes some amount of violence is better than the alternative. I wouldn't go so far as to say that legitimizes it. — Tzeentch

Maybe you take "legitimizes" more deeply than I do. I agree that non-violence is always preferable where possible. But you seem to agree that it is sometimes, lets say, warranted, or called for. Like, if someone tries to take something that belongs to you, you don't just have to let them, right? (Is that itself violence/coercion, them taking something from you?) It's okay for you to stop them, right? Is it okay for someone else to help you stop them? Or for there to be an organized force of people who help people stop people from doing things like that, taking things that belong to others?

I wrote the preceding post on the impression that you answer "yes" to all of this. The remaining question is then "what rightly belongs to whom?" Which then gives an answer to when it's okay to stop people from taking things from others, and consequently what even constitutes "taking something from someone" rather than "hanging on to what's mine".

Violence is about forcing one's will upon others (or hurting others; this is why I prefer the term 'coercion'), and there is no just basis for that. — Tzeentch

Not even to stop them from forcing their will upon you? I get the impression you think defense is okay, but that's still violent coercion: you're not letting the attacker do what he wants to you, you're forcing him to stop. Which is okay, because you belong to yourself, and he doesn't get to decide what's okay to do to you, you do. But it gets fuzzier when people disagree about who gets to do what to property rather than person; that depends entirely on who that property rightly belongs to.

My will is no better than yours. The will of the group is no better than the will of the individual. A government's will no better than that of their subjects. — Tzeentch

I agree.

A political system that cannot recognize this, and instead sees violence as instrumental; a tool to be used to achieve it's goals based on it's own conceptions of right and wrong, I can only consider as tyrannical and deeply flawed. — Tzeentch

The only political system that completely rejects any such thing as legitimate violence is anarcho-pacifism, which is completely vulnerable to the first person who doesn't agree with its principles and decides to use violence against the people who think it's not okay to use violence in return.

I get the impression that's not what you're arguing for.

I look at self-defense as follows;

First, there is no question to whom one's physical body belongs. It unequivocally belongs to the individual. The individual and their body cannot be seperated.

Second, the essence of self-defense is preventing oneself from being violently coerced, and there is an element of necessity (perhaps linked to the protection of that which belongs unequivocally to you) and involuntariness (which intuitively seems to be the key here). I would not consider blocking a strike to be an act of violence, for example. As long as the act of self-defense continues in that same spirit, I think there is a distinct difference, though this is certainly a good question. When elements of retribution or revenge are added, I think it turns clearly into an act of violent coercion in its own right.

Like, if someone tries to take something that belongs to you, you don't just have to let them, right? (Is that itself violence/coercion, them taking something from you?) It's okay for you to stop them, right? Is it okay for someone else to help you stop them? Or for there to be an organized force of people who help people stop people from doing things like that, taking things that belong to others? — Pfhorrest

Hmm...

I am not sure I would consider stealing an act of violence or coercion. When done consciously I certainly find it immoral. It seems linked to coercion, yet distinctly different. If objection to the theft is met with reprisal, then it is clearly coercion. Without that last element, I am not so sure.

It is exactly the element of reprisal that makes governments coercive. Do not pay taxes and one gets fined, or worse, thrown in jail.

When something was taken from you without objection, does one still possess the right to take it back by force? I'm not so sure.

When something was taken through coercion, does that make a counteractive act of coercion justified? In other words, do two wrongs make a right? I'm not so sure either.

Then there's the issue of determining what rightfully belongs to whom, which our hypothetical situation has already shown to be in contention. Who should determine this, if it can be determined at all? Who or what can be trusted with arbitration of such things? These are great obstacles for me, since humans are fallible, governments prone to corruption over time.

Certainly this produces a lot of food for thought.

Cops having the best firepower and preferably the only firepower is kind of the shit here. Now, having middle east refugees in our country I can see that the police-only force was a late 1900’s european lullaby and people need to get armed. Sadly.

To make things a little less abstract, if I may for a second, how do you look upon the question of admitting refugees from middle east conflicts to a western european country, and how is that based on your political beliefs? And in what social background did you get those political beliefs?
Facts are - a lot of the kids of the refugees becomes criminal and carries a deep hate for people living in the receiving country. But still, those people may escape from an early death in their home countries.

(I feel my English got a bit Scandinavian here but i hope i was reasonably clear...)