Philosophical Vegan Forum

This is a continuation of a discussion with brimstoneSalad which can be found here: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... 6&start=40

This may include talk of secular morality, but this topic is about government so I welcome anyone to challenge my anarchist position. Maybe you want ask how a particular government service can be provided in government absence? If you're already an anarchist or like the idea, say hello!

I've already provided an answer for police and courts being non-essential for government to provide. That answer is private defense agencies and arbitration. These things exist today, but under an existing government framework. If you want the details on how the framework is unnecessary, this 30 minute video series explains it much better than I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEd ... DF96760B37

@brimstoneSalad: You talked A LOT about morality in reply to me, but I'm not too sure how else I can respond other than directing you to the FREE book by Stefan Molyneux called Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. All his books are free and can be found on youtube as well as here: https://freedomainradio.com/free/

You mentioned Daniel Dennett; if you'd like to recommend a particular book, I'd appreciate it.

The importance of Stefan's book was to answer how it can be possible to convince people who are not moral, that morality is important in general, and this particular one is the answer. I don't think I can do it justice in my own words, but it starts with the premise that anyone who says something like: "you can't punish me because my particular action is not immoral under these particular or non-particular circumstances!" is already admitting they accept logic, consistency, and universality. It goes on from there. Not much else I can say though...

The only other thing I want to reply to is your challenge that I can't point to where the self is... Seems obvious to me that the self is the flesh bag we call "body" which includes the brain. Things like fashion may be external and a defining characteristic of the self, but the choice, whatever you think that word means, exists in the brain and is responsible for the external expression.

I replied to the second half, regarding moral philosophy and Molyneux, here:
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=15&t=177

Political theory is quite interesting, and done properly, it all comes down to how things play out in game theory. What are the effects of a system?

Competition has some serious advantages over monopoly- particularly in that, in a corruptible system, monopolies are extremely prone to corruption.

Corruption not only leads to bad consequences, as in violating civil liberties, and potentially creating a totalitarian system, but it's also inclined to inefficiency.

However, competition is also inclined to inefficiency, and some unethical practices itself (when competition becomes too heated- sabotage, espionage, even all out violence). So, it can be a toss-up.

The best system, obviously, is an incorruptible monopoly.
But, that's also probably a fantasy.


There are systems that reduce corruptibility (like setting them up with adversarial branches, and checks and balances), but these systems also reduce efficiency.
Our current 'democratic' process is almost set up to maximize corruption (based on the way voting and districting works).

The trouble is, none of the options are the clear winner. Things that reduce corruption lead to more inefficiency, things that increase efficiency lend themselves to more corruption.

A lot of it comes down to faith. If you have faith in your leaders to be good, then you might favor a monopolistic government structure.
If you have faith in your leaders to be cunning enough to be evil no matter what checks and balances you install, then you'll favor an anarchistic structure (which may be the strongest safeguard against corruption, but also the least efficient).

I'm unwilling to favor either option, or any option, without evidence. I'd just need to see it tested, and observe the consequences.
It's not so much a test of the government itself, but a test of human nature.

What kind of government maximized efficiency, while minimizing corruption, based on human nature?

Only experimentation can tell us for sure, because human nature, as of now, is too unpredictable to form a perfect model.

brimstoneSalad wrote:However, competition is also inclined to inefficiency, and some unethical practices itself (when competition becomes too heated- sabotage, espionage, even all out violence). So, it can be a toss-up.

The best system, obviously, is an incorruptible monopoly.
But, that's also probably a fantasy.

First of all, we disagree on ethics so no use arguing about that again lol. But you talk of inefficiency due to sabotage ect. This means you're comparing it to something that doesn't involve those things... But you admit that's fantasy... So you agree competition is the best solution, right? You say you don't because of the possible efficiency, but we can't really know the future, so how do we know who's plan is right? Idk, so let them all exist until we do know, then let people individually make the choice because at no point will we ever know for certain (aka competition). Anything other than this is claiming to have knowledge you can't have... Even science doesn't demand people to agree, it just is the best way to identify truth. Each individual chooses to accept it themselves.

I was hoping for a more specific objection, though, because if you look at the specific functions of government individually, you should find that none of them are impossible to be provided with sufficient efficiency outside of a government framework (compared to all forms of government that we think is possible).

It is not faith, however, because we KNOW corruptible people aim for that power. Unless you can propose a system of government which excludes those jerks, then people voluntarily choosing who to associate with on their own is all there's left.

GPC100s wrote:But you talk of inefficiency due to sabotage ect. This means you're comparing it to something that doesn't involve those things... But you admit that's fantasy... So you agree competition is the best solution, right?

Competition in some form, probably the best thing we have, yeah.

Although, that can come in the form of distinct independent agents, or more indirectly in the form of a monopoly that is divided against itself with an adversarial multi-party system (although our kind of elections have kind of broken that, forcing our two parties to be almost identical because they're reliant on the approval of lobby groups).

GPC100s wrote:You say you don't because of the possible efficiency, but we can't really know the future, so how do we know who's plan is right?

Try it out.

If only we had giant country sized petri dishes

That's one of the things that works well about a republic- with smaller borders, like states, and less federal oversight, states are free to experiment. When those experiments fail, they can revert. But when they succeed, then other states can adopt those programs too.

Federal level changes are too big to fail, so they encourage stagnation in some ways, unfortunately.

GPC100s wrote:I was hoping for a more specific objection, though, because if you look at the specific functions of government individually, you should find that none of them are impossible to be provided with sufficient efficiency outside of a government framework (compared to all forms of government that we think is possible).

As long as there is a minimal federal government (even if that's just some kind of treaty) which prevents the peace keeping and judicial organizations from going to literal war with each other, and breaks up monopolies (otherwise one would just eat all of the others, and you'd be back where you started), and some system for tie breaking, things could possibly work.

I don't know what efficiency it would reach. But with the amount of government corruption and inefficiency today, it's hard to imagine it would be very much worse.

It would have to be tried out to know for sure, though. Sometimes things come up that you don't expect.


Take Mao Zedong's great leap forward- which turned out to be a step back.

Agree with his government system or not, the agricultural policies seemed to make sense.

They had different towns testing different agricultural methods, in a huge, nation-wide horticultural experiment. It was brilliant, except one thing: Human nature.
The administrators of those towns were rewarded for high yields- which was meant to encourage them to do the best they could, and not slack off (so each method of agriculture would have its best chance of success).
But instead of reporting yields honestly, they exaggerated the numbers to get rewarded. Then when the government came along to collect the tax, in the form of produce, the numbers were wrong, and they unknowingly took so much food that people starved.

A system that seemed perfectly reasonable on paper, and yet was an epic fail in practice. It turns out, oversight is impossible at that scale- which is why the whole concept of communism pretty much fell apart: human nature. It was a great idea, but it just didn't work.

It's why it's essential to test things before putting them into practice on a wide scale, to avoid SNAFUs like that.

If a bunch of anarchists and libertarians got together and made their own city, a few thousand people, and set up policies like this, and it worked, and it was better than the government we have now, I'd be all for it.
I'd probably be excited to live there and help test it out, and see how it worked. In the very least, it would be interesting.

From my perspective, the current system is pretty terrible, but there are also a lot of things we can do to improve the current system step by step, without revolutionary changes. If we go step by step, also, then we don't have to worry about catastrophic failure. It's slower, sure, but I think it gets the job done too.

A good start would be voting reform. An actually representative democracy (rather than all of this districting -- we have the technology) with some kind of approval based voting could go a long way to ensure the viability of third party options.
Of course, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in making third parties viable.

GPC100s wrote:It is not faith, however, because we KNOW corruptible people aim for that power. Unless you can propose a system of government which excludes those jerks, then people voluntarily choosing who to associate with on their own is all there's left.

Legislation by jury has been an interesting proposal. Randomly select a jury, instead of having the corrupt rise to the top to be representatives, and then have the various propositions presented like a court room- then they vote on the law.

We have real world examples why hiring private contractors for defense and policing is a horrible idea. Blackwater in New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, any defense contract with CACI running of cost plus payment systems etc... in a world of multinational corporations the one with the most money can bleed opposition of money until the people filing the case are bankrupt.
Things Anarchy would not help and would in fact worsen. Wage gaps (see trickle down and core periphery economics) , working conditions,(Bhopal, Triangle trade fire, any computer we have ever bought, textiles, etc.) and environment ( Cuyahoga river fire, food industry pre-FDA, automotive emissions, farming practices, Currently illegal logging operations, Unregulated mining etc.)
in short the system aint perfect, because humans aren't perfect. I'm not defending the current system, I'm simply saying that this is still better than anarchy.

@brimstoneSalad: I would LOVE to see the federal government take a step back and let states like Texas and California try out things and watch what happens. I even want to see The Venus project do their thing with their circular cities. There's a reality show being made called "Utopia" which look interesting; but it's bound for disaster because the participants that are supposed to be living in this isolated "utopia" are so different: religious and atheist, gun and anti-gun advocates, and some of them want to be leader lol.

But I think that the best competition would be the smallest borders of all: the individual is the emperor of their property. They would interact like nations do today except less war because government officials don't spend their own money, they make an excuse which makes it seem reasonable to take other people's money, then they have to spend it for that purpose.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Legislation by jury has been an interesting proposal. Randomly select a jury, instead of having the corrupt rise to the top to be representatives, and then have the various propositions presented like a court room- then they vote on the law.

Interesting, but uninformed people will make uninformed decisions. Minimum wage law sounds nice, people will think they'll be better off, but it's not like that in practice. Instead of getting more money, the lowest skill people will get fired because they now produce at a loss. That's unintended consequences for ya!

But just in case you meant that two sides like lawyers explain the pros and cons of the proposed laws, consider how those lawyers get elected. Can't be random because they have to be informed.

Twizelby wrote:We have real world examples why hiring private contractors for defense and policing is a horrible idea. Blackwater in New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, any defense contract with CACI running of cost plus payment systems etc... in a world of multinational corporations the one with the most money can bleed opposition of money until the people filing the case are bankrupt.

Those defense contractors are paid by government, the decision of which is made by someone who doesn't pay, tax payers pay. That's a fundamental difference... Did you watch the video series I linked in the original post? It explains why the defense contractors actually have it in their best interest not to shoot each other.

Twizelby wrote:Things Anarchy would not help and would in fact worsen. Wage gaps (see trickle down and core periphery economics) , working conditions,(Bhopal, Triangle trade fire, any computer we have ever bought, textiles, etc.) and environment ( Cuyahoga river fire, food industry pre-FDA, automotive emissions, farming practices, Currently illegal logging operations, Unregulated mining etc.)

Many of the things you mentioned are solved simply by property rights (which are defendable by the defense contractors, which I addressed). The poor working conditions, for example, are chosen by the workers. Here's a video showing how sweatshops help the poor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo

The environment, is also solved by well defined property rights. Loggers in South America are given permits to log, so they clear cut as much as they can and move on. But in Canada, loggers are allowed to own the land, so they replant the trees as a future investment... Water and air pollution is different, because they're not divisible, so it's pointless to own. But businesses that engage in terrible practices can be boycotted. They rely on customers so they must change.

You might object that customers don't know what practices are going on (also an issue with food standards) but we have real world examples of watchdog organizations (like JD Power for automobiles and more) which are funded by the businesses themselves to give their mark of approval. If they're found out to be untrustworthy (taking bribes for good ratings) they lose their reputation and no one will pay them for their ratings anymore... Without governments, those watchdog organizations just become more important.

Oh, and wage gaps are not a problem because businesses rely on customers, so they must improve the lives of customers or else they make no sales. This means the people who have the most money have done the most good in the world.

GPC100s wrote:@brimstoneSalad: I would LOVE to see the federal government take a step back and let states like Texas and California try out things and watch what happens. I even want to see The Venus project do their thing with their circular cities.

Absolutely. Although there comes a point where some policy is obviously successful or unsuccessful, and I think there would have to be some kind of federal oversight to step in and say "look, this isn't working, the only reason you're continuing the policy is because it's filling the right pockets- stop it, do what they're doing. That worked."

Things like the Venus project are very interesting.

GPC100s wrote:There's a reality show being made called "Utopia" which look interesting; but it's bound for disaster because the participants that are supposed to be living in this isolated "utopia" are so different: religious and atheist, gun and anti-gun advocates, and some of them want to be leader lol.

That's scary. Well, it's definitely a recipe for drama

GPC100s wrote:But I think that the best competition would be the smallest borders of all: the individual is the emperor of their property.

Best competition, maybe, but also the least efficiency. It's a balancing act between competition and efficiency. I would guess the balancing point is somewhere in between.

As you group more people, you get more collective power, and efficient infrastructure... but then when you get to a certain size, it gets less manageable, and efficiency seems to drop again.

There have been a lot of numbers thrown around. 50 people? 300 people? I don't know.

There is a benefit to having a group small enough that everybody can be acquainted with everybody else, which creates interpersonal bonds which increase trust and decrease corruption- because people can keep an eye on each other, small-town style, and feel real commitments to their groups.

GPC100s wrote: Interesting, but uninformed people will make uninformed decisions.

That's why you have the opposing sides for an issue come in and present their cases- just like the prosecution and the defense in a criminal trial. During the trial (which would not be a short process), the jury becomes informed, and then they make a choice. They don't vote on it until they're educated on both sides of an issue. In the free market place of ideas, given fair representation for each side, the more rational side with more evidence is more likely to win.

Unlike in our current system, where legislation is made by the corrupt, who are elected with special interest money and (usually) lies.

I'm not saying I support that system, but it's an interesting idea. I would love to see it demonstrated.

GPC100s wrote: But just in case you meant that two sides like lawyers explain the pros and cons of the proposed laws, consider how those lawyers get elected. Can't be random because they have to be informed.

You don't need to elect them. You can have a nearly open forum, giving time to the major representatives of both sides of a proposed law. There are always lobby bodies for and against proposed laws- you get them to send representatives as the lawyers.

It might mean that the jury spends a month sequestered listening to some fringe weirdos along with the real experts, but you have to trust that they'll be able to figure out who the nut-jobs are when they're presented with the evidence on a fair and level playing field (just as evolution has repeatedly won out in courtrooms mostly full of Christians who started out as creationists or undecided when it has gone to trial).

Would it work? I don't know. Would be great to see it tested, though.

GPC100s wrote:Water and air pollution is different, because they're not divisible, so it's pointless to own. But businesses that engage in terrible practices can be boycotted. They rely on customers so they must change.

Polluting communal air and water is a form of assault (a less severe one, but none the less), or theft/property damage (they have adulterated my clean air and water, it now has less value).

Terrible business practices are things like making a crappy product, or treating their employees disrespectfully and not paying them enough- and that's something that consumer advocacy organizations, and the free market can deal with to an extent.

There can be no tolerance for wide-scale assault and theft of communal resources- that's not something you let the market work out. That's what police are for (or, independent contractors, as the case may be).

We have carbon capture technology. There's no reason a company can't either capture all of its own emissions, or pay another company to do it. The price would go up, but that would only encourage people to conserve carbon producing energy resources as they should have been doing all along. It would also naturally encourage cleaner energy, like nuclear, wind, and solar without government subsidies.

brimstoneSalad wrote:As you group more people, you get more collective power, and efficient infrastructure... but then when you get to a certain size, it gets less manageable, and efficiency seems to drop again.

But trade is the collective power without forcing anyone to actually be a part of a collective. I benefit from you while you benefit from me, but neither of us are forced.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You don't need to elect them. You can have a nearly open forum, giving time to the major representatives of both sides of a proposed law. There are always lobby bodies for and against proposed laws- you get them to send representatives as the lawyers.

If you never close the argument until there are no people left to talk, then they'll never stop talking like an endless debate lol. Someone has to have that authority, which means someone can be bribed to end the debate before the real advocate for one side can even speak.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Polluting communal air and water is a form of assault (a less severe one, but none the less), or theft/property damage (they have adulterated my clean air and water, it now has less value).

It's not a form of assault for the same reason poisoning food that you don't own is not a form of assault... You can say that everyone owns the air, but then no one can agree on how much CO2 is ok.

I prefer to say that it's no one's, that way anyone can do anything with it and if enough people care about the environment, market forces will force the change. But if not enough people care, then democracy won't fix it either.

The reason I prefer air to be unowned as opposed to collectively owned is because a collective 51% of the people can say "I don't want any CO2 from industries!" and the 49% who want some industry will be forced to live in the stone age. Without a collective, you'll have the same 51% living in the stone age, happily; while the 49% get some industry, happily; and the resulting CO2 output will be the collective wants of the people. (yes, this is an exaggeration, but the point still stands for what the proper price for energy should be. Our values are not all the same.)