So if you decide to give out reparations or redistribution in some form to people based on race, how do you then (or now) define who's black / native indian enough? Or is you idea of making it without simply saying that it's race you are after. Well, then people won't think of it at all as reparations.

These kind of things lead to extremely bureaucratic 'racial' hierarchies, you know. A blossoming of racial purity, in a totally perverse and weird way.

At least Trump did the Trumpian move here: A hideously ugly scandal that he is intrinsically involved with, he brings it up and starts attacking Bill Clinton on twitter. Nice move for Trump, actually, Trump loyalists will surely buy this. After all, wasn't Trump totally exonerated by the Mueller report?

I was making a descriptive argument for why the majority of people hate their jobs. This seems to be the case with almost everyone I’ve ever talked to. — Noah Te Stroete

Ok, well, this is a little different it seems. Because people can be happy with their work yet be really clueless of the purpose of life.

Yet if we look at those that say they hate their jobs, not those that just dislike, are frustrated of or have some critique about their work, but only those truly have a hatred against their work, then their lots more to it shown with the passionate emotional attachment of hating. Personal relations in the workplace would be one natural issue (harassment etc.). If not, naturally to have such an emotional response to something has to be justified to others and what better justification than that the work is totally without purpose, doesn't produce anything, is of no service.

This actually isn’t true. Iceland was anarchistic for the first three centuries of its existence, and had quite an elegant justice system. — Virgo Avalytikh

Medieval Iceland? Likely Iceland was then somewhat anarchistic (likely not as much as present Hollywood with it's silly biker-gang Vikings depict the societies to be). So was my country, definately! After all, here there was no king, no formal state, and no feudalism, yet the Vikings didn't conquer this place (hence a common defence existed).

But Iceland, a community of 50 000 people of basically settlers that came to an uninhabited island in the Middle Ages? Seems that it has been found by right-wing libertarians, who have noticed some resemblance to an anarcho-capitalist legal system. However, from the link you gave, Friedman himself writes: "It is difficult to draw any conclusion from the Icelandic experience concerning the viability of systems of private enforcement in the twentieth century. Even if Icelandic institutions worked well then, they might not work in a larger and more interdependent society. And whether the Icelandic institutions did work well is a matter of controversy; the sagas are perceived by many as portraying an essentially violent and unjust society, tormented by constant feuding. It is difficult to tell whether such judgments are correct." Tip my hat for Friedman that he understands that it's difficult to compare a medieval society to later more modern ones.

So that's your refutation to my argument that there hasn't been an historical example. I was hoping that you might give as an example some British colony (for a brief period of time, at least) perhaps in the 17th or 18th Century, but there seems to be none. This just enforces my thinking that this whole discussion is far more about ideological issues of especially anarcho-capitalism and isn't so much about actual historical facts (or classical liberalism for that matter).

Libertarianism is modest in the sense that it requests only that persons not be aggressed against; a modest request indeed. It’s really not much to ask. — Virgo Avalytikh

This isn't an answer to my question at all. I asked if a state can be more closer to the minarchist state than to a totalitarian state, or if you argue that all states cannot be anything else than statist.

I took this as rather ad hominem, as it was directed at me, — Virgo Avalytikh

Sorry then for trying to make the point that libertarianism cannot lead to totalitarianism.

I think both of you missed my point entirely. — Noah Te Stroete

I do think I got your point. Perhaps you didn't get my answer. I'll try to make it from another angle.

My point was that before there were modern cities, when people were living in small tribes and everyone in that tribe had a place, knew everyone else, and were indispensable to that tribe — Noah Te Stroete

Actually, people weren't indispensable to a tribe, quite on the contrary: if you had a group of hunter-gatherers, having too many mouths to feed would be a major problem. You have to understand it's not about before there were 'modern' cities, having cities at all is already a clear sign of specialization of work and of a complex culture.

The fact is that a more complex society is often too difficult for many to understand how it functions. That agriculture, the specialization of work, tools and machines, markets and institutions creates the possibility of a society where indeed there can be philosophers or pet psychologists or simply those who don't do anything, don't even work. There being career philosophers and artists and these living in prosperity shows even today the wealth and functionality of the society and it's economy. This is most clear when you simply look at the existence of large cities. The population of Rome is a perfect indicator of what happens when globalization in Antique Times came to a halt and how long it took for the city to recover. Just look at what year the population of Rome surpassed the population of Imperial Rome at it's height.

This having to look outside of one’s occupation for meaning is unique to civilization and not something you would find in an indigenous tribe. That is my thesis. — Noah Te Stroete

And just how much meaning is there more if you are tasked to gather firewood and haul water from distant wells? Sure, everybody would notice this by evening meal if you would not have performed this task, especially if only you would have been given this mission. Yet is that purpose for life? It's more about clarity or simplicity. I would even put it totally the other way around. True purpose rises from things that you as a human being can perform that is something totally else than what an animal does: gathering food, taking care of your children (or making them) and sleeping. Like discuss philosophy with absolute strangers to you living in other continents over a communication network that few can clearly fathom how large it is and how it actually works. If you learn something or improve your writing skills, wouldn't that be great.

If my purpose is to provide for my family, and I fail at this, then I still know my purpose even though it is not accomplished. I’m not sure I was getting at this in my OP, though. I think existential meaninglessness comes from having to do a lot of activities in modern society that can seem pointless, but this has a lot to do with how sensitive one is and their personal disposition. — Noah Te Stroete

The feeling of meaninglessness starts from the fact that you don't have fight every day for your own survival. Your not even so crucial to your family either, that if you die, your family unlikely won't end up in utter poverty begging in the streets and facing hunger. Might have been in an earlier time a possibility when that glamorous 'purpose' was so clear and everything so simple.

Of course then there's the other thing that if especially you are an American, people there tend to work extremely long hours, yet aren't at all more productive. Many have said it here who have worked with American companies. Hence likely working time is simply wasted in the altar of simply 'working'.

I think that people in the military have a radically different relationship to whatever country it is that they serve than ordinary civillians. It's a totally different experience. — thewonder

One's relationship to his or her country, even to the armed forces itself, is quite ideological. Many civilians are quite as patriotic and conservative as people in the military.

In the end the military is for the vast majority actually quite an ordinary workplace, especially if the armed forces isn't totally mobilized on a war footing. Those countries that are engaged now in wars typically have a rotation system present, which still leaves actually a huge part never seeing combat. Just to make the case how much in the military is something else than the stereotype of GI's living barracks and doing push ups, the Infantry Branch of the US Army makes just 5,8% of the total manpower of the US Army. Then you have to make the difference between the youngsters, the young enlisted or conscripts, and the older professional soldiers and officers who have made the military a career.

Do you think that the absence of the war in the media is dilliberate or that it is just simply resultant of that people don't care to pay attention any longer? Do you think that it could be part and parcel to American policy to downplay the conflict? — thewonder

Yes, absolutely!

The media understood that Obama inherited this mess and didn't feel the need to push him on this issue as Obama had pledge was to get the troops back from Iraq (and we got ISIS as the Shiite regime of Iraq couldn't at all handle the Sunni areas). The war hasn't been anything new, nothing newsworthy, as it has been basically the Afghanis that have been killed. Hence both Obama (especially in his second term) and naturally Trump have totally downplayed the war in Afghanistan. What is there to gain with reminding voters about it?

And many governments, just like mine, downplay totally and categorically their involvement in the war. For example Finland alongside our neighbor Sweden has deployed a small contingent of troops to Afghanistan, where they de facto have been part of the forces fighting the Taleban. Sweden deployed and rotated a force equivalent of a batallion and Finland of one company at the most. Sweden has lost 5 soldiers in combat and Finland 2. Naturally neither country in their hypocrisy have ever acknowledged that they indeed have been and are involved in a war, because no matter how you look at it, the ISAF wasn't your ordinary Peace-keeping force as UNIFIL was in Lebanon (among others). Nope, it would be far too ludicrous for the history books to say that leftist governments at the time both in Finland and Sweden, one country having been in peace since WW2 and the other for 187 years in peace, decided suddenly to go to war with the US in Central Asia and have been there participating in the war since. Not even peace activists have ever protested about this in Sweden and Finland (to my knowledge). Hence in neither two countries the word "war" is used ever. Both still have troops in Afghanistan. I have some friends even that have served tours in Afghanistan, so the War on Terror can be felt even here in Finland.

What will happen in a world where ongoing wars can just simply be forgotten by the general populace? — thewonder

Likely there will be this mental rift between those families who have people that serve or have served in the military and others who have nobody that have experienced the military. Especially Hollywood creates this twisted fictional reality of what the military is and hence "civilians" often forget how normal the people in the military are.

And, of course, people simply won't understand why there is terrorism, why some foreigners are so hostile to them, because they don't grasp the bigger picture and history behind the present. But many times that's what the politicians want.

The purpose for life is an eternal question. It isn't linked to how advanced or simple the society is where one lives or, in the end, to the role one has in it.

A subsistence farmer, someone who grows crops for personal use and to feed his or her family, isn't at all closer than a bookkeeper to a purpose for life. A bookkeeper (meaning an accountant, yes?) has an obvious function and plays a crucial part in a modern society to keep the complicated system functioning. Bookkeepers were one of the earliest professions in history and are essential even in a quite rudimentary and far less advanced society than we have now. So being an accountant is important to other people, even if you aren't treated as a hero by your society. Or put it this way: Would you have more purpose for your life, if you quit your accounting job and would voluntary seclude yourself (and perhaps your family) from the society and become a subsistence farmer and hunter/fishermen? To buy a real estate that would have fish an wild animals around has to be big, hence you ought to have been a very successful accountant, actually. Would you truly have more purpose or would it be an escape that a rich accountant can make?

Feeling the lack of meaningful purpose and/or the lack of lasting accomplishment usually tells that a person is simply unmotivated in his or her job and/or worries that he or she hasn't lived up to his or her potential. We are, starting from childhood, bombarded with the notion that we have to chase our dreams and that we can be anything we want to be. And that dream isn't to be an low level poorly paid accountant is, if not said, subtly hinted. This basically makes some persons feel that they have wasted away their life in a lousy job, which they aren't proud of. In the end they will be among the vast majority of human kind that become totally non-existent to history and future people once they die and once closest people to them (their children, their friends) have died too and nobody remembers them. So if you'd only done this or that, written that novel you thought about earlier in life, it truly would have touched the huge masses of people in the future and you would have had a purpose by creating so much joy or excitement. But now... nothing.

Yet is this really about a purpose or is it more about other things like fame or appreciation of others, hedonism or celebrity worship or the simply the collective idea that "You've made it in life when x"? That's the question.

The repercussions of US interventions in the region have been catastrophic. None of what we have done there in nearly all of the past century has brought about anything that could at all be considered to be positive. All of American foreign policy in the region needs to be radically reconceptualized. It's sort of massive undertaking, but is not outside of the realm of what is possible. — thewonder

I think that there is a simple reason to this.

To be the sole Superpower with a hugely effective armed forces in the World along with the USD being the back-up currency of the Global economy gives US politicians the ability that they simply don't have to think about it when going to war. Fighting a war in the middle of nowhere on a separate continent can be done without much political backlash. Ordinary people aren't affected as the soldiers are volunteers. There's no wartime economy or rationing as happened earlier with wars.

So when it can be done, when it doesn't wreck the finances of the government, when it doesn't push the military to a breaking point and when the whole fighting simply can be forgotten by the media, absolutely whimsical and nonsensical strategies can be followed. Why? Because they sound good to the domestic crowd that the politicians want to please. There isn't the absolute urgency to resolve the war. It's not important. Obama went to Afghanistan four times. George Bush only twice. Trump has never visited the place and has only once been in Iraq. That really tells about the political commitment.

I would ask people just to stop and think how utterly crazy is the idea behind having an occupation force in Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and assisting the Afghan Army. The main argument is that "If the US would withdraw from Afghanistan and if the Afghan government would then fall, the Taleban could use Afghanistan or lend the country to other groups to be used as a safe haven for terrorist attacks on the US". How many "if"s there in this argument? For me, the "Domino Theory" was far more logical and sane (even if totally wrong) in South-East Asia during the Vietnam war.

When there isn't a political cost to pay, policy train wrecks can easily happen. And what else has the US foreign policy in the Middle East been other than a very long and slow train wreck?

They didn't just come out of nowhere. The (then) mujahedeen (now Taliban) were radicalized by the then CIA, under the watchful eye of Brzezinski and others. We supplied them advanced heat-seeking weaponry (Stinger's) to shoot down planes and other avionics during the Soviet war with Afghanistan. — Wallows

Wallows,

I don't think that the Muslim community was radicalized because of the CIA. It radicalized because a lot of Muslim countries actually helped the 'Mujahiddeen' to be formed. The CIA might have pushed them for this or aided in this, yet the decision was made in the Muslim countries themselves. The invasion of a Muslim country did create volunteers coming from other countries. And it should be remembered that the foreign fighters played a very, very minor role. Pakistan had a lot to do with the fighting and the CIA basically let the Pakistani ISI decide where the actual weapons went. CIA had very few guys actually on the ground. Hence pro-Pakistani forces got the vast majority of the aid while other insurgent groups, like the one lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud didn't get much aid (likely because being an ethnic Tajik and not fighting next to the Pakistani border).

The role of Pakistan shouldn't be sidelined when talking about Afghanistan. And no Taliban without Pakistan.

If memory serves me correctly, it was Bin Laden that took what he perceived as injustice against Muslims being used like toys on the battlefield of proxy wars among the USSR and USA in the middle east. — Wallows

Actually, he got really pissed off when the Saudi government invited the US forces to trample the holy soil of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina lie during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He (Bin Laden) had first pledged for the Saudi government to use 'his' Mujahideen to defend Saudi Arabia. Well, the Saudis chose the US Army.

It's not clear to me. Are you saying black people are stupid or working class people are stupid? — T Clark

Oh God. :roll:

Now where did you get the thought that I was referring to 'black' or 'working' people here?

(Oh right, the TITLE!!!!)
Yes, I'm bit sleepy. It's late here.

One of the saddest things about privilege is that the privileged usually come to believe they deserve it, and so take pride in their privilege, instead of acknowledging it as a debt they owe to the underprivileged. — unenlightened

Yeah, I'm just waiting when smart and intelligent people will start acknowledging their debt to the stupid and apologize. I mean, without stupid people around they wouldn't be so smart and so privileged, right?

No, for the simple reason that libertarianism is non-utopian (or non-paradisiacal). — Virgo Avalytikh

I don't refer here to an utopia being equivalent to paradise, when I talk about utopia here. Perhaps better would be to talk about a fictional or a theoretic model of a society, because there is no record of this kind of non-state society having ever existed or emerged and the idea that it would (or could) emerge seems doubtful.

Libertarianism is not so much a structural vision for ‘fashioning’ an ideal society, so much as a set of really very modest conditions on the basis of which it is possible for individuals to fashion their lives largely as they wish. — Virgo Avalytikh

So it's modest for you to say there cannot be a state that is more closer to the minarchist state than to a totalitarian state, that all states are statist? That limited government is utopian, cannot happen because every government ever has simply grown and grown?

Is it just my imagination, or are you getting steadily more ad hominem each time? — Virgo Avalytikh

I haven't made or intended to make any ad hominem attacks to my knowledge. What's so bad in saying that a libertarian society simply cannot morph into totalitarianism?

I made the point above that the fundamental philosophical objection to the State is that it apparently has license to engage in acts of aggression which it prohibits others from engaging in — Virgo Avalytikh

But is that true? You do have the right to use violence for self defence. And isn't a State made from people that uphold the idea of that State so much, that even others also accept the existence of the state?

I once witnessed a debate between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant. The Catholic argued that his church, the Roman church, is single and unified, and has never throughout its history experienced schism or division. — Virgo Avalytikh

Perhaps this Roman Catholic ought to be reminded of the Schism of 1054, which has lasted and divided the Christian Church since then. (And likely there are many Protestant Churches that have never throughout their own history experienced schism or division after their emergence, just like the Roman Catholic Church.)

Have you ever seen My Perestroika? It's a pretty good documentary on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Adam Curtis also has a pretty good bit on it in I can't remember which documentary. — thewonder

Have to find it and watch it. But I've experienced the effects of Perestroika and Glasnost as a child when our family had Russian (Soviet) visitors in the 1980's.

My parents were medical scientists and they invited visiting scientists to our house. So before Perestroika to our home came these two older Soviet women scientists (two naturally, they had to keep a check of the each other and act as 'minders' when Soviets met Westerners). Family and naturally science were discussed and the mood was very cordial. Then happened Gorbachev and the reforms (and later the collapse of the Soviet Union). So next time it was only one woman scientist and when she visited us again her first words were "Did you know Stalin killed my father!." Her fathers 'mistake' had been that he was an aviation engineer and had studied in Germany. Her mother had been informed only later that her husband had been killed, but had been a good man and the state apologized for it. His father once just didn't come home. You could feel what a burden this had been for her and then the dinner table discussion could venture even into present day politics. Something that simply doesn't happen in a totalitarian state.

To get back on topic, I don't know that a proper response to the attacks would have necessarily required outstanding politicians. A more pragmatic response would have effected a more pragmatic reaction. People also become "great" in dire situations. All that the U.S. would have needed following the attacks is someone who was level-headed. — thewonder

When you have this fine awesome hammer and the obstacles seem to be nails...

Let's not forget the history of how the US has dealt to terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. For example the attacks against Gaddafi's Libya (by Reagan) and Sudan and Afghanistan, which the last one's were deemed to be Clinton's "Wag the Dog"-moment because he had the Lewinsky scandal exploding in Washington.There is this continuation of how to respond to terrorism by military means in the US. To break this mold and go with something else is a brave decision by any political leadership.

I said the concept of ‘limited government’ is utopian. My point is that a State with clearly circumscribed limits remaining within those limits in perpetuity is too much to reasonably hope for. The usual ‘checks and balances’ to which apologists for the State typically make appeal (the democratic process, the separation of powers, a written constitution) are not up to the task. — Virgo Avalytikh

When you don't have absolutely any example of the ideal state of the society (the non-state libertarian paradise) which you model and every state ever is too suffocating for you, isn't that idealism?

I've always seen libertarians as good and rather harmless people. Because in reality their society or state likely closest to their ideals would be a huge disappointment for... the libertarians. Social Democrats would enjoy very much a classic liberal state. What better environment for a social activist than a society with a functioning healthy economy and prosperity?

Let's face it, the society where Virgo Avalytikh would confine every one else here participating in this debate into a "re-education camp" where starting from the morning to the night the libertarian creed and NAP would be taught to us to mold us into true believers of libertarian values is simply an oxymoron.

Now totally oxymoronic societies can perhaps exist, but this case I find very unlikely.

Yeah, 9/11 conspiracies are kind of depressing. You always have to wonder. They weren't as common as you might expect, but fairly common during Occupy. Aside from that they do tend to ultimately be anti-Semitic, they also distract from actual legacy of U.S. foreign policy in the region. — thewonder

Spot on.

But in a country where people believe that the US didn't send astronauts to the Moon, anything is possible and the discourse can easily be hijacked by crazy stuff. In a way Americans are like Russians: they are very critical about the official line and are quite open to incredible conspiracies.

I guess I feel like the response should have been similar to the earlier attacks. — thewonder

Basically then we would have to had truly larger than life politicians. What kind of orator of a President could have contained the natural lust for revenge and not come out as looking like a chicken? Besides, likely "Arab Spring" would have happened at some time, and likely that would have sucked the US into a war in the Middle East any way. Afghanistan could now be like... Cambodia. Forgotten yet peaceful.

Larger than life politicians emerge very rarely.

Just like when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a small but totally true opening when Russians would have embraced the West. The country could have become a democracy, but it would also have required larger than life politicians then both here and there. To avoid the lure of hubris in the US after the collapse of the Soviet bloc would have been extremely difficult. And in the end we got a KGB chief who became the new tzar. Well, at least we did avoid a new Russian Civil War that could have killed hundreds of thousands in a war similar to Yugoslavia, but in a bigger scale. Especially with the wars that have happened between Russia and Georgia and Russia and Ukraine show that this lethal scenario wasn't so far fetched. (But now I'm off subject, sorry...)

Yes, it may, must and would be enforced. The important point to note here is that the NAP applies equally to everyone, everyone should be subject to it, and anyone should be able to enforce it. But the State is an aggressor, which reserves for itself (coercively) monopolistic privileges. This is where the difference lies. It violates the NAP, and uses force to reserve for itself the monopolistic privilege to do so. - What is more, 'limited government' is utopian. Once a government exists, its growth is inevitable. — Virgo Avalytikh

Coercive aggressor, which has an inevitable growth and 'limited government' is utopian?

And then you say

I don’t ‘hate’ the State

:smile:

Well, this seems not to be an economic debate, but simply an ideological debate where you put the NAP on a pedestal and treat it as a religious icon.

I've noticed that discourse nowdays tends to go in the way of a religious mantra. The state, central banks, large corporations, the free market all seem to become these incarnations of evil, just depending on what side you are (or sometimes on both sides). In the Soviet socialist bloc there was a perfect word for this. It was called a "lithurgy". All the correct words and endless nonsensical chatter without any true meaning. But it sounded politically correct (in the right circles).

Have you by the way ever read Max Weber?

Because your idea that "anyone should be able to enforce it" goes along the lines of Weber's thinking, and the most important issue is that the people accept the monopoly of violence, and this monopoly violence isn't only of the state. I agree with Weber in many cases and think he's one of the smartest philosophers/thinkers around in the late 19th Century early 20th Century (if you can depict him in that way).

. I don't think that we ever should've been in Afghanistan in the first place. There was never a reason to engage in a conflict on the ground whatsoever. One could argue that some sort of operations should have been carried out against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but I still would have probably been ostensibly opposed to even that. — thewonder

It a simply issue of how many people were killed in the attack: the 1993 Twin Tower Bombings, some of whose perpetrators were relatives of the 9/11 attackers (which show how small the Al Qaeda cabal truly was), killed "just" 6 people and injured over a thousand. It was a minor event.

Hence it was solved with a police investigation. And finally the FBI caught from Pakistan the main perpetrators like Ramzi Yousef and others two years from the bombing, actually quite like the Seals captured Osama bin Laden far later. And the terrorist were put through the normal court and sentenced into the normal US prison system. Of course if even one tower had collapsed with everybody inside (let's just remember that the majority of the people could flee the building before they collapsed on 9/11), the death toll would likely have been in the ten thousands.

And likely then Clinton would have gone to war 10 years earlier...somewhere. Even with 9/11 the Democrats have made it totally clear that if it hadn't been the Republican Bush administration, a democratic Gore administration would have ABSOLUTELY SURELY gone to war with Afghanistan (and likely had stayed out of Iraq).

The simple fact is that Americans wanted revenge and going to war was the most simple answer. An administration that would treat as a 'normal' police matter the killing of over 3000 Americans would likely not have politically survived.When a country has the military capabilities of a superpower, then it will use those capabilities in this kind of situation. So even if I have been against the war and it has been a disaster, I do understand Americans here and would say others wouldn't have behaved differently... especially when the response can be so that ordinary people don't have to sacrifice anything.

But to stay fighting a war because "otherwise the terrorist might get a foothold to launch their attacks" is a little bit mad. Wonder how many Americans still know that Americans are in Afghanistan and the war continues?

So after over 3000 Americans been killed the war has killed now over 100 000 Afghanis. That is small compared to the 1 million killed during the shorter Soviet invasion, yet still is a very large number.

I saw the 9/11 memorial last month when visiting New York with my family and the two large squares with water flushing under and with the names of the deceased is a solemn memorial. By counting the Jewish names on the memorial I remembered just how repugnant all the conspiracies around the whole attacks are.

A State is an association of persons who hold a successful monopoly on the use of force over a geographical territory. — Virgo Avalytikh

By that definition Syria isn't a state.

Whether there is more to it (and there may well be), it is not helpful to simply use ‘State’ as a stand-in for any obtaining social organisational principle. — Virgo Avalytikh

Why not? Especially when looking at history this divide becomes very problematic. How do you define a tribal community? These communities surely did have laws of their own and could be very advanced.

States are agencies of force, force that is wielded at the behest of some (historically, a monarch or ruling class) against others. It can never be ‘representative’ of the people as a whole, for precisely this reason. Even if it is notionally ‘democratic’, — Virgo Avalytikh

And what does the libertarian society with the 'libertarian creed' do to enforce this creed? Or it isn't needed to be enforced?

If I were to ‘tax’ people this would be theft/extortion, — Virgo Avalytikh

And what's the difference between a tax and a payment for services, especially if you provide me a service I need?

Virtually everybody? I don’t begrudge your not reading the entire thread (I haven’t). But if you do, you will see what I mean. It is an unwarranted assumption being made tacitly left, right and centre. It is the number-one philosophical prejudice that I am gradually trying to gnaw away at. — Virgo Avalytikh

I have to remind you of the definition of statism:

a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

Now what I don't understand is that you are talking about just this 'Statist' nations and seem not to show any interest or accept even the possibility that the state wouldn't have 'substantial centralized control' over social affairs and the economy. That those classically liberal/libertarian elements are there in many countries curtailing the power of the state. A lot of people simply don't think that all countries are so centralized. In my view a Statist nation was the old Soviet Union, which I had the opportunity to visit just when it was falling apart. Western countries simply aren't similar to Soviet Union.

I'm very sorry if this comment offends someone, but the more I think of it, the less this whole discourse of the "American people having guns" to somehow to "defend their nation from their own state itself" makes no real sense.

As a long time reservist and coming from a country with obligatory conscription with the vast majority of adult males having served in the military, I find this whole debate absolutely bonkers, totally crazy. Yet it's very American in the way it puts the individual at the center. It's as the discourse has been hijacked into a realm of ideals that doesn't have much to do with reality and how people in real life behave. Hence it's a discussion totally alienated from reality.

The idea of people having guns to defend themselves from a Superpower state that somehow would start to act like a loose cannon is basically just ideological masturbation on how special Americans (and their Constitution) is. It gives this fantasy of 'being free' or 'standing on your own feet'. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality, nothing to link it with any historical facts of any political crisis or civil wars. Even the United State's own Civil War and how quickly the two sides organized themselves into huge armies lead by generals ought to tell the people how absurd the idea is. It simply goes against any thorough understanding how societies behave and organize themselves in a civil war or in real political turmoil. Above all, I think it paints this hugely condescending idea of the military and the people working for the nation as if they would be something 'different' from the 'ordinary citizens'.

To put it simply, if any nation collapses and the monopoly of violence of the state (or the state itself) vanishes, people will under no time form militias which are organized quite like armies. The pistol and shotgun of Joe Sixpack and his own individual actions are quite useless to anything else than to inflict harm to some unarmed person that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The arms of the military will be in no time in use and hand guns and small arms owned by civilians won't decide the course of the war. Perhaps talking about societies behaving in a collective manner sends the wrong vibe to many, but just look at history.

Again I'm responding very late to the discussion, this time starting from page 4 and then commenting the later debate.

Hatred really has nothing to do with anything. I don’t ‘hate’ the State. I am opposed principally to aggression for philosophical reasons, and the State is an agency of monopolised aggression.

But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body.
— ssu

Yes, I do. — Virgo Avalytikh

Then your body, your liberty isn't property in the similar way and cannot be explained in the same way as something that's value is defined by the market and can be sold and bought (and I don't mean here people selling services). And when you look just what Murray Rothbard said about the 'libertarian creed', this difference is quite evident even from your quote from Rothbard:

This is Murray Rothbard, prolific libertarian theorist and the first anarcho-capitalist:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion. — Virgo Avalytikh

This 'central axiom' is quite clearly a social insititution, a very collective axiom, a general law accepted collectively. And any individual thinking that he or she doesn't have to abide with this 'central axiom', or that this creed limits his or her freedoms (like enslaving other people) obviously will not be tolerated. And this DOES make it blurred, even if you deny it. Because typically a state is there to uphold exactly these kinds of freedoms.

Hence Metaphyisician Undercover makes this argument:

You disavow the State, which gives a system of property rights, but at the same time you presuppose a system of property rights. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because what else other is the state as an collective effort of it's citizens? People that adhere to the "libertarian creed" do form in a way a proto-state themselves. If they enforce collectively this creed, what is so different of them acting as a state? Or is the thinking here so naive that states just 'exist' and are formed from people who get their salaries from the 'state', hence occupy a governmental position?

I would say that a major task of political philosophy is to determine in a reasoned way what kinds of conventions in relations to property are worth recognising and which are not. — Virgo Avalytikh

And this is basically what a state does...

The fact that there are differences of opinion on this question is not to say that there are not or could not be such conventions; it simply requires us to do the hard work that political philosophers do. Moreover, to say that, because one is a Statist, one simply doesn't have any basis on which to conduct such a discussion, is completely unwarranted and not convincing. — Virgo Avalytikh

Again this hatred of 'statism', which you deny to have, which I don't know where it comes. So 'philosophers' can thinking about 'political philosophy', but if they reach some universal agreement (or close to it), they wouldn't be... politicians?

That the State is the only possible ‘source’ of rights has not yet been justified. — Virgo Avalytikh

And just who is saying that?

My body is mine to use, abuse and exploit to my heart’s content. It seems to me most plausible that a system of ownership rights should start here, since, before we can establish what (else) I may own, we must first establish who owns me. — Virgo Avalytikh

But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body.

Markets require a system of property rights, which are conventions, but not institutions. — Virgo Avalytikh

Actually no. You can say conventions are institutions.

A social institution consists of a group of people who have come together for a common purpose. These institutions are a part of the social order of society and they govern behavior and expectations of individuals.

Hence 'property rights' is exactly a very specified institution and those kind of things what historians and sociologists refer to when talking about institutions.

I just don’t make the leap thence to Statism. — Virgo Avalytikh

That's the problem with libertarianism: the extremely passionate emotional hatred of 'statism'. For me, statism is more like the common definition: "a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs."

I notice there in the definition "substantial centralized control". For me, there is a leap from let's say "loose minimal control" to statism, but for some libertarians the state itself is this kind of evil, an incarnation of socialism and a threat to liberty and capitalism. This drives the narrative to describe 'libertarian' society to be this fantasy-like 'nation' filled with equally fantastic people living in it.

When throwing billions of years one has to be cautious:




Talking about extinction events the timespan is crucial. It's an interesting viewpoint when thinking about cause and effect. When viewing things in billions of years external factors outside Earth will be crucial:

Yes! A billion years is way too long to be accurate to the dynamics of the system, but 'a billion years' is simultaneously a cultural signifier of 'a time so long ago it's irrelevant' and 'a very long time', it also suggests the sheer time scales dynamical relations can persist in. — fdrake

Even if this is a bit off topic, I noticed the same thing as T Clark. A volcanoe that has erupted one billion years ago would have people arguing that it's not a volcano at all, only that it perhaps formed as a volcanic eruption. One billion years ago we were where? The proterozoic era with only life emerging. In between there's I think one ice age that had the World completely under ice. Hence there wouldn't be the interaction between the environment and the volcano.

Better time range would be 100 000 years. And to really function as you said perhaps only 10 000 to few thousand years. That still is a time that people don't give a shit.

‘Mainstream economists’ actually does have a fairly refined designation. — Virgo Avalytikh

Yet we typically then just end up attacking caricatures painted typically by those who oppose the school of thought. Anything called 'mainstream' is typically seen in a somewhat negative light, because otherwise the word wouldn't even be used. I've especially come to be very critical to how "Keynesians" or "Austrians" are depicted in this way. I don't know where the emotional detachment comes from, perhaps from the political nature of economics, but in the end economics isn't about 'good/correct' and 'wrong/bad' economics. It is far better and more accurate to refer to exact economists and what they have said. Typically this way you get far better answers.

I understand ‘market intervention’ in a political context simply to be any State action; any service a State provides (which is funded by tax revenue or debt) or any kind of regulation is an intervention into the system of peaceful voluntarism which characterises the ‘free market’. — Virgo Avalytikh

The strict (and quite ideological) juxtaposition to a "State" and the "peaceful voluntary free market" isn't a good model as you simply need institutions starting from simple rules for a market to work even without any 'State' involvement (or a State even to exist) in order for any market to operate. The market participants have to agree on basic rules, starting from the definition of what is a "peaceful and voluntary" transaction and what is "theft" or "involuntary". And this is basically a totally similar collective "intervention" to someone who can think he or she can do otherwise. If you accept that such rules are needed, especially in an advanced market, then where do you draw the line with "good" market intervention and "bad" intervention? Sorry to say, but markets do need rules.

Sorry, I don’t understand what this question means. ‘Costs’ are forgone opportunities. Can you explain? — Virgo Avalytikh

You write above that "all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses." So what about your right to live? Can someone own you? If that is not so, then not all rights are just about use or ownership of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

So, in the new political game, everybody points to everybody else's fringe groups to generalize from there. — alcontali

That's not new. Especially in the Middle-East. Starting with the Isreali Arab conflict as a whole.

(Btw. the most objective reporting from Lebanon I found actually in the local magazine (Finland, that is) of the Blue Berets, where veterans of UNIFIL remember events their contacts with the locals and the Israelis.)

It is always possible to conjecture a link between everything and everything else. For example, scientific racists brandish selective IQ tests to support their views. Therefore, everybody who uses IQ tests is a scientific racist. — alcontali

That really isn't an answer.

The simple fact is that these types of jihadist movements are linked to the salafi movement even if not all salafists accept them.

It's typical that a fundamentalist religious movement is by it's definition less permissive than a dominant religious school which is in service of a large multiethnic empire, as was with the 'Ottoman Sunnis', as (Taleb?) writes.

So what's your problem with how Taleb writes/doesn't write about Hezbollah? Or is alcontali on the other side of Lebanese politics?

It seems to me that monopolies and oligopolies are subject to the same inner logics, that the former are in effect more problematic versions of the latter (ceteris paribus), and that almost anything that is true of a monopoly is a fortiori true of an oligopoly, too. But if I am missing something here, feel free to fill me in. — Virgo Avalytikh

They have a different logic.

The simple fact is that so-called natural monopolies don't emerge on the free market. In a free market, it simply doesn't happen that one company would be so awesome, so much better than any competitor that it could dominate alone the global market and no other competitor would seriously compete with it. Monopolies have to have a state entity or some legal foothold to enjoy a monopoly on some narrow field. A medical company might have patents to a revolutionary new treatment, but that will unlikely make it a 'natural' monopoly, especially when the patents expire.

Whereas monopolies are typically related to government actors, the other type of market condition isn't. An oligopoly situation is very different from a monopoly. Take any market, production of cars, smart phones, shipping, the chemical industry, whatever, and you can see that there are about ten or so large companies that actually take care of the majority of the supply side. That is an oligopoly situation.

. The market tends perpetually towards an equilibrium — Virgo Avalytikh

And that's what I said: it's all the time making the correction. To think it will stay in an equilibrium is wrong. Likely it will be this oscillatory movement that simply continues on and on as things change.

What I find, however, is that it is the mainstream economists (who are Statists down to a man, as far as I can tell) who tend to think in terms of ‘perfect markets’ and, recognising that they are unrealisable, argue for government intervention on that basis. — Virgo Avalytikh

Speaking of 'mainstream economists' isn't productive. Far better to refer to specific economists, not refer to stereotypes. And what is market intervention? One could argue there being laws and a legal system is 'market intervention'.

All I really have an interest in arguing is that, given that the State is itself a monopoly of the most dangerous kind, it is not a reasonable solution. — Virgo Avalytikh

States have the monopoly on violence. This comes down to the issue of defence and security. I think Max Weber put it aptly, actually.

This is incorrect. While many libertarians (minarchists) agree with you, others (anarcho-capitalists) do indeed believe that the market is not only capable of providing these services, but insist that it does so much better. See, e.g., Friedman and Rothbard, which I posted above. — Virgo Avalytikh

Is it incorrect? At least you admit "many libertarians" think so and I do agree that surely there are those ridiculous fundamentalists who think that absolutely everything can done better with the private market, perhaps even their own personal life starting from having a family could be better done by the market...

Yet there obvious problems with this idea of private defence starting from things like unified command of the military during wartime. Defence simply isn't a hired guard that keeps your property safe. Trade and violence are two separate things. If you have direct quotes it would be interesting.

As I observed above, fundamentally all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses. — Virgo Avalytikh

And just where does it then put (the cost) of your own life?

But they simply are salafi movements.

Al Qaeda might have been a tiny cabal, but you simply cannot say that about the now largely defeated ISIS with many thousand soldiers few years ago.

That's the problem libertarians define "aggression" in a way which suits their purpose, not in a way which represents the thing which we refer to as aggression. Then they hijack the non-aggression principle, applying this definition of "aggression", to create the illusion that the non-aggression principle is compatible with the right to own property. — Metaphysician Undercover

As attack is the best defence, which has been shown well in history with the examples of "pre-emptive attacks" like the Six Day War, the issue of war and the military is very complex for the libertarian.

Libertarians, even the anarcho-capitalists, often make very casually the exception of defence in their ideal society. Yet they obviously understand the total incapability of a simple market mechanism to handle the defence of the society. It's not a simple 'service' that you pay for. It's a very crucial issue as it simply shows that not everything is taken care by the markets and there is this very real collective effort on the shoulders of the society, not the individual.

Having been a way for a while I'll respond to your answer on the first page, although I understand that the discussion has moved ahead.

It is probably worth saying something about monopolies — Virgo Avalytikh

As I said, the question actually is about oligopolies. It's totally different from monopolies...

Whatever your feelings about natural economic monopolies, the State is not the answer. — Virgo Avalytikh

This is one of the main arguments of libertarian economic thinking. Yet there aren't so many 'natural monopolies' if any. Some might argue that this is because of there existing various states and regions, but I disagree. The market simply naturally evolves into an oligopoly situation. There can be a 'dominant' company, but the demand side typically wants there to be at least a couple of companies providing the products or services. Above all, the dominance of the leading company typically is only in an narrow segment of the market that leaves room for other large companies. And this leaves to the current problem: there are effective simple models for perfect markets or models that show the inefficiency of a monopoly, yet the most common market situation isn't much described by economists or economic models.

So I know you cannot mean this. Perhaps you are merely illustrating the fact that not everything which comes under the umbrella of ‘market failure’ is caused because of individuals taking decisions whose costs are borne by other people. This much I am happy to concede: it may well be that some examples of market failure are not caused this way. It is only a tendency. ‘Market failure’ is defined (at least for my purposes) as a case wherein individually rational actions produce a negative effect for almost or absolutely everyone. So your example would indeed be a case of market failure. A — Virgo Avalytikh

I think you get my point, at least partly. The thing is that the market is constantly moving somewhere and it actually doesn't find a 'perfect state' or a 'general equilibrium'. To think that if only left alone, the market would find this 'general equilibrium' is as false as to think that nature left alone will create an optimized 'perfect harmony'.... and all problems of famine and loss of species etc. is because of man. History of the Earth has shown on many occasions that evolution and the interaction between plants and animals doesn't lead to a tranquil harmonious state. It's similar with the market mechanism. It works in many cases, but that doesn't mean it works perfectly and fundamentally will be in a state of correction.

Taleb is known for other things than being an Middle-East expert. I guess many would have a distaste of his views about what are good movies too, but we haven't heard those yet.

In my opinion, the Salafi become understandably radical and intolerant when you incessantly black mouth them — alcontali

So, you think it's the problem that people have just black mouthed Salafists?

Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and ISIS are Salafi movements.

Oh how unfairly have they been treated. :roll:

As people hate so much authorities today, they tend to sometimes misunderstand what healthy skepticism is and notice when that scepticism of 'the authorities' turns into nonsense. When you can pick what you like to be the facts, thanks to our new social media landscape, it's no wonder why people are so confused.

Yes, to embed knowledge into your own life would be one solution. Yet people take these things as, well, entertainment and simply don't make an effort to think themselves and/or study the issues to get a true understanding. Nope. Just to watch that tantalizing and entertaining pseudo-documentary that shows how "you have been fed lies" and how "it's all a huge conspiracy" with sinister plans for the small people like you. Entertaining especially when you feel marginalized not having that academic degree from an Ivy League university. For some this entertainment gives even a community, a home and a way rebel, to be different. Hence no wonder a few people think that the World is flat. It's far too difficult to go to the seashore and observe how large outgoing ships "sink" and incoming "emerge" from water. Or boring.

One basic problem with the theory of the free market is that even if it comes close to describing reality, it doesn't get the cigar. What the global markets are absolutely dominated are oligopolies and oligopolistic competition: thousands of smaller actors exist yes, but only ten or so large companies exist that simply dominate the market. Basically in every market there is. As libertarianism can be accredited to make good critique about state created monopolies and things as disasterous as centrally planned socialism, it hasn't in my view made such a compelling explanation how we get nearly in every market an oligopoly.

What is the cause of market failure? According to Friedman, it is caused by my taking an action such that the benefits go to me and the costs go to other people, or my not taking an action because the costs would go to me and the benefits would go to other people. — Virgo Avalytikh

Sound politically convenient. Yet is it really so simple?

I purpose an a mind experiment: Let's assume a new of technology emerges and creates a new market, where every major actor in the market is an optimist and a believer in "the cause". This aggregate optimism will create a mania and the stock prices of this new industry will shoot to the moon...until even your old aunt has invested in the 'new thing' and there is nobody left to buy at such astronomical prices and hence the prices collapse bursting the 'speculative bubble'. The crash will be then seen as a market failure.

Yet was it done only because of weasels trying to rip off innocent people? Do we need here really the market participants 'that take the benefits and costs go to others'? Sure, partly this is so, especially in the finance sector. Yet I don't think explains everything.

I agree that a pragmatic approach (how do we actually use knowledge) can be more productive that a complex analysis of "what constitutes knowledge." Especially where there are so many disagreements over details. — Pantagruel

Pragmatism or the much dreaded 'common sense' do make sense here. Especially when we make the assumption that something presented to us as a fact wouldn't be either real or is a biased view/interpretation with some other agenda behind it. There too we should use pragmatism and common sense. How big should the conspiracy be that people have been tricked into believing?

And let's remember that modern knowledge is based on all before it creating a complex system. In a way all knowledge is "standing on the shoulders of giants" and the actual experiments done today can be in the end very simple, even if they used advanced mathematics and advanced machines to make an observation.

I remember the story of one Greek (who's name I've unfortunately forgotten) who showed by experiment that air exists, that it's not only a separate 'wind' that we feel. He took up a cup made from mud, turned it upside down, and submerged it into water. When he took the cup back up he showed that the bottom of the cup wasn't wet, hence there had to something in the way of the water. Idiotically simple, but many experiments typically are so even today.

Scientism is the idea that there is only one knowledge-justification method, i.e. the scientific one. — alcontali

More in a way that it (science) answers everything. Yet the fact is that we have extremely important and necessary questions that are simply subjective.

How the physical world is doesn't gives us an answer to what is morally right or wrong, how things ought to be. Or answer things about what we like or not.

Where many believers in scientism go wrong is when they think that these subjective questions can be answered objectively by science...and typically simply assume their own subjective view has to be the natural answer that science gives.

But regarding predictions, one thing's for sure: there's a consensus among experts that Brexit will be economically disadvantageous. — S

Well, an economic downturn can happen in the fall too.

In the end, it's not a big hassle that you need a visa for a longer stay in the UK or when the queue line is different in the airport. Or books you buy online from a British bookstore etc. will be more expensive as the customs duties get added. Going to the UK will be like going to the US (and vice versa), which isn't such a huge deal in the end.

So what is the likelihood that a hard 'no-deal' Brexit will simply be a nonevent when it happens? Rather likely I'll say. The media still will milk the issue dry.

How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.

Ah, the bromance between Alexander Boris de Pfeffel and Donald John.



Perhaps it's only eclipsed by the bromance between Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn and President Bernard Sanders. :razz:

Trump would have stood no chance against someone like Sanders. J — Wallows

Trump actually would have likely lost to anybody else than Hillary, actually.

We have a shift in demographics or a more active youth, mainly through the effects of social media on voter competency. — Wallows

The demographic shift is why Republicans saw themselves as underdogs even when the have the Presidency and have a hold on Congress.

And, finally fear... I don't think the cold war mentality of socialism as a dire threat to American freedom will work anymore on the current electoral base. Times are simply changing. — Wallows

As I said, the Soviet Union is long dead and buried. Yet what the 'new left' is finding is a new love of Western social democracy, not pure socialism. Whopee.

It might actually be a slight repeat of 2008, just with a new slogan... Like "REAL Change". — Wallows

Like this time it's really, REALLY different!!! This time things will change!!! This time the Congress and the Presidency will work together and solve ALL the problems!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :wink: