I don't think groups of people can be moral agents. Groups are after all comprised of individuals, the actions of which, taken together, may be (strictly speaking, incorrectly) generalized as actions of the group.

Motivations and circumstance, rather than the action itself, are, in my eyes, way more important in judging the morality of a certain action. In what way can it ever be said that the motivations and circumstances of all a groups' members are exactly the same?

In the context of this topic, it is perhaps worth asking the question whether a conglomerate of individuals can be a moral agent, or whether only individuals can be moral agents.

Wouldn't this imply no selfless and caring person has ever had a hard life? And that no selfish and toxic person ever had a good one? — Outlander

True happiness is completely seperate from those things.

Let me guess. You're fortunate enough at present to call yourself happy? — Outlander

Happy? Yes.

Achieved true happiness? No.

True happiness is the great equalizer, because it comes only to those who truly deserve it.

If a God exists, presumably an afterlife exists. If an afterlife exists, death and pain as negative experiences are meaningless.

I think the more one analyzes what it means for them to be truly happy, the more one will realize that what is truly good for oneself is also good for another.

I've always found the phrase "necessary evil" a little puzzling. Evil is really a religious word, and if you examine it religiously it really can never be necessary. Like if a doctor needs to cut off a man's arm because otherwise he'd die due to frostbite we might reflexively call this a "necessary evil" but there's really nothing evil about it - it's entirely necessary. If on the other hand the doctor just randomly cut off the man's arm for no apparent reason, yes, we'd call that evil. The evil lies in the complete lack of sense or necessity. Just something to think about. — BitconnectCarlos

I used the term rather liberally here to describe something which is undesirable but necessary to prevent a worse situation from occuring.

Sticking with your analogy though, it is worth considering whether the doctor's actions can be considered evil when made without the consent (or perhaps with express objection) of the man. The doctor may think he knows what is best for the man, but if the man disagrees then on what basis should his arm be cut off anyway?

The true voluntariety of these agreements is something that socialists generally dispute, as there generally is not a reasonable alternative for many people besides to accept one of several largely indistinguishable bad deals. I don't want to rent from anybody, for instance, but my only practical options are to rent a house from somebody, or rent money from the bank with which to mortgage a house from somebody. I don't want to do any of those things, but I don't have enough money to do none of them, so I pick the one that sucks the least. "Your money or your life" is still a choice, but "your life" is not a reasonable choice, which is what makes that "choice" actually coercion. — Pfhorrest

I am mostly on board with this, however I think there's a large grey area between what is unreasonable and what people find personally undesirable. Furthermore, we can have a discussion about what the remedy should be.

There's also a question of what kind of agreements (contracts) should be valid to begin with. — Pfhorrest

I struggle to understand why a contract that is voluntarily agreed upon by two mentally capable individuals would be deemed invalid, except for perhaps contracts that result in direct physical harm (or are made under threat thereof). Is this to protect individuals from their own bad decisions?

Such pre-emptive actions are a slippery slope for me.

And what of my involuntary contract with my government? This type of stance must have some implications for that too.

That does mean I can kick you out of the house I was letting you live in... but it also means I have no use for that house that I'm not living in, since I can't contractually obligate anyone to pay me to live there, since I can't legally owe them the right to live there... without just making it their property, that is. So in lieu of being able to rent it out, I would have no better choice but to sell it... and nobody else will be buying it for a rental property, since they can't rent it out either... so I can only manage to sell it on terms that people who would otherwise be renters could afford.

I think that that revision to which contracts are valid would have far-reaching effects that basically incentivize people not to own things besides for their own use, and so achieve socialist ends -- the owners of things are the users of things -- without actually having to directly reassign ownership. — Pfhorrest

Maybe you could elaborate a bit further on this, because I don't think I fully understand what you mean. Should everything I have no use for then belong to someone who does have a use for it?

This is interesting but unclear what exactly what you mean. Could you elaborate? — praxis

I'm talking about wars, atrocities, that sort of thing.

Do you agree that evicting someone from their home for failure to pay someone else is likewise coercive: "Give me money, or get out, or else"? Or someone "evicting" someone from their workplace for similar reasons: if workers in a business decide not to hand the money that customers paid them over to the owner, so that the owner can give them a small fraction of it back, but instead keep it all for themselves, and the owner says "then get out, or else", is that not coercive? — Pfhorrest

An important element that I think needs to be considered here is whether the supposed coercion is not the result of a voluntary agreement that has taken place in the past.

When someone pays a landlord so they can live on their property, it is implied in the agreement that whenever they can no longer pay the landlord, they can no longer live on their property. Presumably, they know the terms of the agreement beforehand, and voluntarily choose to go ahead with it.

The same seems to be true for the workplace example. One makes a voluntary agreement with the workplace owner to do labour in exchange for wages.

In these cases, it seems both sides should be able to end the agreement, should either side fail to meet their end of the deal. After all, it also seems normal that a worker should not have to work if their boss does not pay them.

So I don't think these examples are strictly coercive, even though I could think of many ways such situations can become coercive or immoral. For example, if a side alters the terms of the agreement knowing the other side is in no position to object. Or if one side acts with the foreknowledge that the other side will not be able to fulfill their end of the deal.

Note that in the case of government, there never was any such agreement. One is born involuntarily and made part of a state without one's consent.

Usually, it's a government enforcing the "or else" there in those situations, but even if there nominally is no government, if the owners themselves can get away with enforcing that "or else" themselves, then they effectively are a government themselves. — Pfhorrest

I think this is true.

The original socialists, libertarian socialists aka anarchists, think we just need to stop there being governments that do that kind of stuff, or any other kind of coercive stuff, in the first place. State socialists in contrast think we need a powerful monopolistic government (a "state" in the usual terminology) in order to keep private owners from effectively becoming little warlord states of their own, or else using their influence to corrupt a nominally democratic state. — Pfhorrest

Until humanity loses its desire to force its will upon others (a distant, distant utopia), I think anarchy can achieve only chaos until the power vacuum is inevitably filled up and new governments are formed.

However, powerful governments are something I am strongly opposed to (unless it is somehow based on strict consensuality between it and its subjects!). As we've discussed, while I can accept governments as a necessary evil in the absence of a better alternative, I see their power as illegitimate. Power has a tendency to consolidate, grow and corrupt; none of these things I wish to see happen to something I find undesirable in the first place.

Furthermore, a look at history warns us of the dangers of powerful governments. We tend to forget that when we say much blood has been spilled in the name of religion and ideology, all of those wars have a common denominator.

The choice between coercion by the individual and coercion by government is an interesting one, but there's not a doubt in my mind that the evils committed by individuals are utterly dwarfed by the evils committed by governments.

But I also think, and I wonder if you would agree, that inequality just as inevitably breeds authority, so allowing inequality to fester inevitably foils the libertarian objective. — Pfhorrest

I think this is true, but I also think it is a very interesting discussion in its own right. This reply is already getting a bit more lengthy than I had intended, but maybe we can come back to this at some later point.

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised with how open-minded you've been about all of this in this discussion. I hadn't been paying close attention to you before, but I had the impression that you were the usual right-libertarian capitalism apologist. So far, you seem much better than that, and I'm enjoying our conversations. — Pfhorrest

That feeling is mutual!

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.

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.

What a cop-out.

Is this a fair judgement? What if one individual’s sense of evil differs from another’s? — Legato

It sounds good as a personal creed, but due to the subjective nature of good and evil it is entirely unworkable beyond that.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Clarify your point, in that case.

Friend, you have already been utterly refuted by Banno. This is not just an opinion, it's a fact. It's why you didn't answer his valid questions. — JerseyFlight

You did not answer Banno's questions, you did not even engage his argument, which amounts to the total negation of your position. — JerseyFlight

It's pretty clear you have been refuted. — JerseyFlight

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

You don't win arguments by repetition.

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world? — Ciceronianus the White

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.

Ah. So you are not coerced into following the traffic rules. You choose to out of a sense of utility.

You would follow then even if they were not attached to a set of penalties.

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? — Banno

Come to a point.

Is it that coercion doesn't always produce situations which are highly undesirable?

I never said it did.

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (, , pay attention next time). Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view.

There is another way out of this, just let your beliefs about the topic alter. That's the value of other minds. It's pretty clear you have been refuted. Don't hold onto the error, move in the direction of the greater truth. — JerseyFlight

You have already lived way beyond your without-government life expectancy, so if you want to be true to your "values" you should take one of the guns you're undoubtedly stockpiling with your government-given rights and use it on yourself. — Pro Hominem

Pathetic.

You stand in opposition to ideas like everyone having access to medical care, every child having equal access to a useful education, ordinary people being protected from the poisoning of their food and environment by uncaring corporations, and levying higher taxes against people who are struggling to make ends meet than against people with access to many billions of dollars. — Pro Hominem

I didn't have to bid for moral superiority. — Pro Hominem

Mhm.

Do you stop at the red light? — Banno

When it seems useful to me, sure.

The real irony here, my friend, is that this fella is a beneficiary of government, and more importantly, he is not going to walk away from it any time soon. I mean, he can flee to the mountains with his anarchist gang and they can all be free, but they had better not be leeching off society in any way if they want to remain consistent with their principles. — JerseyFlight

This is, of course, the equivalent of telling an immigrant to go back to their home country if they do not like it here. In fact, it is even worse, because an immigrant made the voluntary decision to become part of another society.

They'd just have to contribute to the welfare of people around them, even though they don't want to or don't care to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

Using a system of coercion to force people to do things against their will seems highly problematic to me.

Someone who's concerned about socialism is concerned about his/her money and property being used, by government, for someone else's welfare. — Ciceronianus the White

Not really. For many, me included, it is the fact that a government may force individuals to part with their wealth.

This is the problem that is central to the political spectrum.

While I understand individuals may have different opinions on the implications of this inherent tension at the center of governance, I find it disconcerting that many cannot even recognize it.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not a particular state is worth it or provides sufficient value. — praxis

Shouldn't that be up to the individual to decide then?

You’re not interested in those things? You’d prefer to not pay taxes and live in a society where everything is privately owned? — praxis

This answers a question with a question. We can get to my interests later. For now I am wondering how one justifies that a person who is not interested in the things a state (supposedly) provides, nor is interested in having those things provided to him by a state, is still forced to pay for them.

In a world like that you’d still have to pay for travel, security, and everything else. — praxis

Of course. The difference being; there's no state that gets to take one's things, to provide one with services one didn't ask for nor wishes to receive.

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

Furthermore, governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, and therefore I consider governments, at their basis, to be no more legitimate than a despot.

For these reasons, government will, at its very best, be a necessary evil.

This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things. — JerseyFlight

What if an individual isn't interested in securing those things? Under the current system they are simply forced to pay for them anyways!

The key is to put the power of this apparatus in check, not to abolish it altogether (though I am totally open to serious conversations on the possibility, they just seem to me like romanticism). — JerseyFlight

I agree. Though, governments seem to have a tendency to, over time, grow corrupt and to consolidate more power. Keeping governments small with as little influence over individuals' private goings-on should be an active process. And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end.

When your tirade has settled I suggest you meditate on what I've said. You may think my remarks were ad hominem, but they hit the mark pretty well.

You seem to take issue with this statement:

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money. — Tzeentch

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. That's a statement of fact. If you don't understand why that is arrogant, you're ignorant.

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Then there's the quintessential bid for moral superiority, which I interpret as terribly selfrighteous.

You may scream "Ad hominem!" as much as you want, but so far I consider you guilty as charged.

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Oh, I am concerned with the welfare of people around me. I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government.

You speak with the self-righteous ignorance of a true socialist.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money.