The Purpose of Philosophy is...

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

The purpose of Philosophy is...

To find actual answers (resulting in an end to all questioning).
5
63%
To generate thought (no end to the process).
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:44 pm Consider: two extreme positions (the natural rights libertarian & the marxist communist)
They aren't extremes. They are two aspects of being human. I am a communist in the context of family and libertarian in my global politics.

The way I reconcile the two is via recognition that they both work and serve a purpose at different scale. If you want an example of working Marxist communism look no further than Israeli Kibbutizm.

And as natural rights libertarian, I am sure you recognise freedom of association as an individual right. Which all that is necessary for a bunch of individuals to form a Marxist Communist Kibbuts.

Freedom is a double-edged sword.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by henry quirk »

"I am a communist in the context of family and libertarian in my global politics."

Me: with the 13 year old I'm benevolent dictator.

#

"The way I reconcile the two is via recognition that they both work and serve a purpose at different scale. If you want an example of working Marxist communism look no further than Israeli Kibbutizm."

My reconcilliation: He owns himself, has a right to his life, liberty, & property, but he's a minor, inexperienced, requires oversight. My job: to make him self-directing & -responsible (as well as just lovin' the hell out of him).

#

"And as natural rights libertarian, I am sure you recognise freedom of association as an individual right. Which all that is necessary for a bunch of individuals to form a Marxist Communist Kibbuts."

Oh sure: as I say somewhere in-forum, within the context of self-ownership folks can organize themselves as they like, includin' as an 'anthill'. It's not the communism that's the problem; the problem is when you can't freely walk away from the communism.

#

"Freedom is a double-edged sword."

So hold it by the hilt, not the blade.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:15 am Me: with the 13 year old I'm benevolent dictator.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:15 am the problem is when you can't freely walk away from the communism..
Can your 13 year old freely (as in without consequences) ignore your dictatorship?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:15 am he's a minor, inexperienced, requires oversight. My job: to make him self-directing & -responsible.
That is the exact same argument that can be made for having governments! Humans (in general) require oversight because we are collectively inexperienced and irresponsible.

We need oversight so as to avoid tragedies of the commons which are detrimental to everyone, irrespective of political affiliation.

See? Common ground. Systemic harm prevention.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by henry quirk »

"Can your 13 year old freely (as in without consequences) ignore your dictatorship?"

Yeah, you know he can't, nor should he be able to: he's a child, yet to even imagine crap you & me, as adults, have confronted & then put behind us. Again: my job is to make him 'capable' (he ain't there yet).

#

"That is the exact same argument that can be made for having governments! Humans (in general) require oversight because we are collectively inexperienced and irresponsible."

Doesn't hold water: I for example, can take care of myself, I neither need or want an overseer. My 13 year old can't take care of himself, but -- if he thinks he can -- he has the option of winnin' emancipation.

Now: no doubt, there are adults as incapable as any 13 year old. I understand perfectly they want & need oversight. And they should have what they want. Just leave me out of it.

#

"We need oversight so as to avoid tragedies of the commons which are detrimental to everyone, irrespective of political affiliation."

No, what we need is private owneship of those 'commons'.

#

"See? Common ground. Systemic harm prevention."

Nope. Seems to me you want someone to direct you (but you don't strike me as an incompetent) or direct others (but you don't strike me as a generally tyrannical type); me, I just wanna be left alone, wanna leave others alone.

So: we're not on the same page.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Systemic harm prevention."

Post by henry quirk »

Here's another difference between me & my kid, and citizens & government.

He'll become an adult (five years to go till the age of majority), and go out on his own (my oversight will be done).

The overseer government, however, is perpetual...it goes on and on and on...it deepens, it widens...it never ends.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:21 pm Doesn't hold water: I for example, can take care of myself, I neither need or want an overseer. No doubt, there are adults as incapable as any 13 year old. I understand perfectly they want & need oversight. And they should have what they want. Just leave me out of it.
Right, so who decides in which category you are in? Responsible vs irresponsible?
Who decides whether you can or can't take care of yourself and by what criteria?

Do we default to 'responsible until proven irresponsible', or 'irresponsible until proven responsible'?

You seem to be operating under the second mode with your 13 year old.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:21 pm No, what we need is private owneship of those 'commons'.
OK. How much would you pay for air, water and electricity. If it were entirely privately owned?
How would you avoid being price-gouged?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:21 pm I just wanna be left alone, wanna leave others alone.
Would you say that you are being "left alone" if you are being denied access to drinkable water, breathable air, affordable electricity, sanitation and other resources which are essential for living?

What does your "right to life" mean, when in the absence of water your life expectancy is measured in days? In the absence of air - it's measured in minutes.

What most libertarians love to ignore is that what "freedom" means is also freedom FROM harm.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by henry quirk »

"Right, so who decides in which category you are in? Responsible vs irresponsible? Who decides whether you can or can't take care of yourself and by what criteria?"

I do. If anyone objects, they can fuck off. If my 13 year old thinks he can self-suffice: he has options to challenge my oversight.

#

"OK. How much would you pay for air, water and electricity. If it were entirely privately owned? How would you avoid being price-gouged?.

If you pollute the air I breathe, I sue your ass, prove my case: I need arbitration, not oversight.

Water: where I am, I pay monthly bills for both water & electricity. If the suppliers of either fail to hold up their end of the contract, I sue 'em. Again: I need arbitration, not oversight.

In a truly unrestrained market, gougers are punished by a loss of profit (cuz the gouged go elsewhere); in the managed market we have now, I sue, seek another supplier, or I do without.

#

"Would you say that you are being "left alone" if you are being denied access to drinkable water, breathable air, affordable electricity, sanitation etc?"

If I can buy the product from the supplier (lookin' to make a profit) why I be denied?

#

"What does your "right to life" mean, when in the absence of water your life expectancy is measured in days? In the absence of air - it's measured in minutes."

Yeah, you underestimate my capacity (not surprisin': you don't know me). I've lived off the grid (no water other than what I could find or collect, no electricity, no food beyond what I hunted & scrounged up, no medical care) for a year. It was damned hard, but I did it. I don't fear privation. I do fear the loss of my autonomy.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"What most libertarians love to ignore is that what "freedom" means is also freedom FROM harm"

Post by henry quirk »

As a natural rights libertarian, all it means to me: I absolutely own myself, have an inviolate right to my life, liberty, and property. Ain't nuthin' in there about my bein' made safe or whole beyond my own capacity to 'be' safe or whole.

In the minarchy I crave: the constabulary, the court of last resort, the border military, the militia don't serve as my first option but as my final, hope to be unused, option.

In the current system: everyone runs to the big stick (gov) first, unwillin' to see themselves as big stick (themselves as capable).
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "What most libertarians love to ignore is that what "freedom" means is also freedom FROM harm"

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:04 pm I absolutely own myself. I have an inviolate right to my life.
The Universe disagrees.

The Top 10 things which violate that "right" in 2019 are all medical diseases. And if you are older than 45 (which I am guessing you are) statistically - you would be dead if we were living in the 1500s.

The question of importance is thus: Would a libertarian voluntarily participate in a socialist-collectivist effort colloquially called science&medicide to help address those problems for all humans?

If you answer "yes" - your "individual capacity" is lip service in the context of teamwork.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"You seem to be operating under the second mode with your 13 year old."

Post by henry quirk »

Everday: he has multiple opportunities to demonstrate his capability. He's gettin' there, but he ain't 'there'.

But: should he disagree with me: he can take me to court (wonder how he's gonna pay for it, or even get to the courthouse?).

Is it right or fair? Nah.

Am I a hypocrite? Probably.

I love him, have -- I believe -- an obligation to bring him to a point where he doesn't need me (or anyone) to survive, and if that means he's deprived currently of certain rights (so that he may fully exercise them as an adult), well that just the way it is.

Again: he can sue if he disagrees (sumthin' he knows about cuz I well told him).

#

"The Universe disagrees."

No doubt...and it'll take me one day (but not, I think, today).

#

"The Top 10 things which violate that "right" in 2019 are all medical diseases."

Yep: I'm gonna die, but (probably) not today"

#

@The question of importance is thus: Would (henry) voluntarily participate in a collectivist effort colloquially called science&medicide to address those problems for all humans?"

Only voluntarily, only if I have the option to withhold my cashy support. Tell me I must and watch me game the system to 'not'.

I frankly don't give a shit what other lbertarians do.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:53 pm If you pollute the air I breathe, I sue your ass, prove my case: I need arbitration, not oversight.
:lol: :lol: :lol: But you need SOME social institution to arbitrate?

So it seems to me that you need a bunch of individuals to collectivise and create such an institution. So much for the libertarian dream...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:53 pm I do. If anyone objects, they can fuck off.
You don't think we need arbitration on this? ;)
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:53 pm In a truly unrestrained market, gougers are punished by a loss of profit (cuz the gouged go elsewhere); in the managed market we have now, I sue, seek another supplier, or I do without.
In a truly unrestrained market monopolies emerge. That's how survivorship bias works. Gougers get to set the price at exactly the level where people are still happy to pay rather than steal.

Again - you are appealing to a social institution, which couldn't possibly exist without a bunch of individualists collectivising and agreeing on the rules of fair trade and consumer rights.

But I am really, REALLY curious how you are going to "do without" water.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by henry quirk »

"But you need SOME social institution to arbitrate?"

Only in the here & now (hemmed in as we all are). in the minarchy I crave, only the incapable would use the court of last resort. Me: I'd take a more direct approach.

#

"So it seems to me that you need a bunch of individuals to collectivise and create such an institution. So much for the libertarian dream..."

Local court, citizen board, paid for by those who use it. Not collectivism: cooperation (you don't equate the two, do you?)

#

"You don't think we need arbitration on this?"

On my self-relying? Nope. it's pretty obvious: If I pay my bills & ain't on the dole (both overt & covert) then nobody gets to tell me diddly. If I respect the other's life, liberty, & property, then buttinskys can go pound sand. No arbitration needed. Doesn't mean, of course, jackholes won't continue to try & hem me in. Everyone must submit, especially ones who don't wanna.

#

"In a truly unrestrained market monopolies emerge. That's how survivorship bias works. Gougers get to set the price at exactly the level where people are still happy to pay rather than steal."

Nuthin' wrong with natural monoplies...it's the state sponsored kind that are a problem. Nuthin' about a natural monoply that disallows competitors from makin' a go of it. The state sponsored variety kils competition. In the unrestrained market, it's perfectly natural to see over- & -undercharging. It's also natural to go elsewhere if the price isn't to your likin'.

#

"Again - you are appealing to a social institution, which couldn't possibly exist without a bunch of individualists collectivising and agreeing on the rules of fair trade and consumer rights."

Nope, you're rationalizing hard institutions; I'm poo-pooing 'em.

#

"But I am really, REALLY curious how you are going to "do without" water."

Plenty of books on the subject of outdoor survival...read one, try it out...if you want: you don't have to rely.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm Only in the here & now (hemmed in as we all are). in the minarchy I crave, only the incapable would use the court of last resort. Me: I'd take a more direct approach.
We label people who take matters in their own hands against the collective institutions of society as "terrorists".
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm Local court, citizen board, paid for by those who use it.
I see! So adjudication is privatised also.

What happens if the adjudication institution price-gouges you?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm Not collectivism: cooperation (you don't equate the two, do you?)
I can't tell what the difference if I am getting starved by socialism or by a price gouging food monopoly.

Ultimately all social institutions (be they governments or private corporations) are incorporations of individuals. Both corporations and governments can become too powerful in a way that is detrimental to individual rights.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm Plenty of books on the subject of outdoor survival...read one, try it out...if you want: you don't have to rely.
So basically you are proposing stealing water from the monopoly which has privatised all water on Earth.

The other hard question libertarians hate to answer: Who sold you the land you live on? Keep asking until you find the person who didn't buy it from anyone.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by henry quirk »

"We label people who take matters in their own hands against the collective institutions of society as "terrorists"."

Okay.

#

"I see! So adjudication is privatised also."

It can be. doesn't have to be. As we both agreed: folks can organize themselves as they like, as long as everyone agrees, and natural rights are upheld.

#

"What happens if the adjudication institution price-gouges you?"

Well, in an unrestrained market it ain't gouging, just over-charging.

Anyway: you go elsewhere, do without, or grit your teeth & pay up.

#

"I can't tell what the difference if I am getting starved by socialism or by a price gouging food monopoly."

If you're growin' some of your own food then the bite ain't so hard. And: again, natural monopolies don't preclude competition. That co-op wants ten buck for a sack of potatoes, but Joe will take five. Unless the co-op wants to go to war with a buncha folks who'd rather do business with Joe, they'll lower their price or make do with less profit.

#

"Ultimately all social institutions (be they governments or private corporations) are incorporations of individuals. Both corporations and governments can become too powerful in a way that is detrimental to individual rights."

Sure, but if folks self-rely as default there's less 'need' for other folks. Less 'need' for them, the less of a chance such folks can play overt predator. And: surely you understand there are different levels of 'institution'. You keep defaultin' to hard or rigid institutions while I keep defaultin' to loose or soft institutions. In my experience: incapable folks crave the safety & ease of the hard while capable folks, when they must turn to organization, prefer looser, less powerful bodies.

#

"So basically you are proposing stealing water from the monopoly which has privatised all water on Earth."

Can anyone legitimately monopolize rain (ever heard of a cistern?)?

#

"Who sold you the land you live on? Keep asking until you find the person who didn't buy it from anyone."

Oh, of course, the land I own, at some point in the past, got stole from someone. Nuthin' I can do about that. If that person or his descendants, come a'knockin' lookin' to reclaim, we'll hash it out then (they best be able to prove their claim...I ain't gettin' bilked).

#

"The other hard question libertarians hate to answer"

Buddy, you haven't even begun to tax me: keep 'em comin'.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Most social disagreements are miscommunication due to linguistic dogmatism, not the absence of common ground."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:53 pm Oh, of course, the land I own, at some point in the past, got stole from someone.
If the land you are on got stolen from somebody it means that somebody owned the land (else it's not theft).

Who did that somebody (who got their land stolen) buy the land from?

You kinda get to the point where you figure out that 'ownership' is a meaningless concept outside of a legal framework. But in a libertarian society there's no 'property register' is there?

Who would offer that service?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:53 pm If that person or his descendants, come a'knockin' lookin' to reclaim, we'll hash it out then (they best be able to prove their claim...I ain't gettin' bilked).
Is there any claim of past ownership you would actually honour and accept?

e.g is there any piece of paper, evidence, registry or proof that would make you go "Oh shit! OK. Here is your land back."
Post Reply