Molyneux' FDR controversy is going too far

[John Edward Mercier]

Is it truly the Legislator though?
Or the constituents that push the statute?

We have several instances of this currently occuring.

People that supported the federal funding of rail bed purchases to save them for the future return of rail, now opposed to federal funding of the actual rails to operate on the rail beds.
People that supported restrictions on lake users to protect the lake, now opposed to the same standards being place on them.
Etc.Etc.Etc.

So is that the Legislator, the Police Officer, or the Judge? Or is it juries of commoners discriminating against what they don't like?

[memenode]

I'm aware that police are only a part of the overall system and that responsibility is mutually outsourced across many groups, but once someone recognizes the legitimization of coercion which is inherent in every part of that system then if you don't believe in coercion, the right thing would be to not participate in any of these groups, which is why I see my sister becoming a cop as wrong. By doing so she implicitly and probably even explicitly admits to supporting the coercive acts on which the state depends.

But yeah I agree ostracizing probably wont help even strategically, so in addition to my personal values with regards to having friendly terms with her, there is that too. I can only hope that one day on the job or even early in the academy she realizes in full light what I was describing her.. and maybe at some point decides to quit. I'm not hoping too much though. Then again, I may still be an influence...

[BillKauffman]

which is why I see my sister becoming a cop as wrong.

Maybe she just wants a good paying job?

[memenode]

which is why I see my sister becoming a cop as wrong.

Maybe she just wants a good paying job?

I'm sure that's a significant part of her reason. There's nothing wrong with that in particular, but it's still wrong if in order to have that you must coerce if they tell you to coerce. To be entirely precise I don't even think she'll have done anything wrong with regards to her actual actions when she joins the academy, graduates, gets a job etc. - not until the moment she actually coerces a living and breeding person in a case which was not about defending life, liberty or property, but sanctioning of a victimless crime. That's when she begins doing something wrong.

Still, this process of preparing for that job and the part on the job until she actually does any coercing, clearly involves preparing for, agreement to and condoning of coercion as legitimate.

It's like a would be bank robber preparing to rob the bank. It may not be wrong for him to pay attention to the position of safes, cashiers etc. when he goes to withdraw something, nor may it be wrong for him to sketch some strategies on the paper on how could he most effectively rob the bank. It's not wrong because these acts themselves do not involve coercion. However, it's clear that these acts are preparation for actual coercion (in this case theft involved in bank robbery), and this is why I cannot support them.

Good luck to her being a cop without coercing someone. Good luck to the bank robber being a bank robber without robbing the bank.

[BillKauffman]

You are going to have to articulate a response to the social contract theory and propose something different that makes sense - good luck with that.

[memenode]

I already did in another thread and from what I remember you mostly ignored it.

I didn't sign any social contracts, as a matter of fact. That alone should blow that "theory" out of the water. Contracts imply consent. There was no consent.

[BillKauffman]

I already did in another thread and from what I remember you mostly ignored it.

Sorry. I don't remember. If you can link to it I promise I will read and respond.

I didn't sign any social contracts, as a matter of fact. That alone should blow that "theory" out of the water. Contracts imply consent. There was no consent.

Well that is why it is referred to as a "social" contract and not just a "contract". A social contract implies tacit consent while living within jurisdiction. This is the crux of Ian's protest against the courts over the couch incident.

[dalebert]

I do believe in a social contract. It's called the NAP and it's logically defensible. The one that's used in a contrived attempt to justify a monopoly on violence via the construction of an elite class of rulers is not.

[Giggan]

I do believe in a social contract. It's called the NAP and it's logically defensible. The one that's used in a contrived attempt to justify a monopoly on violence via the construction of an elite class of rulers is not.

^^^ Indeed.

[BillKauffman]

I do believe in a social contract. It's called the NAP and it's logically defensible. The one that's used in a contrived attempt to justify a monopoly on violence via the construction of an elite class of rulers is not.

That's all well and good for you, but he needs to convince his sister of that which is the exact same problem that Ian finds himself in - trying to convince other members of the community.

[dalebert]

That's all well and good for you, but he needs to convince his sister of that which is the exact same problem that Ian finds himself in - trying to convince other members of the community.

Hmm... Well if my one sentence response is too cerebral for her, send her to read some of my comic strips. They're pretty low brow.

[memenode]

Calling NAP a "social contract" is.. irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. "Social" implies collective and universally applicable and as such smells too much like collectivism which is something that I have as low regard for as I have for concentration camps. To me they're equally disgusting.

If it is a contract it involves consent, period. There's no "social", "common" or whatever else term you wanna use to make it seem universal. There is no such thing as an universal contract.

That's all well and good for you, but he needs to convince his sister of that which is the exact same problem that Ian finds himself in - trying to convince other members of the community.

You're seeing a problem that doesn't exist. Trying to convince "other members of the community" boils down to trying to convince a number of other individuals. What we (a number of individuals who believe initiation of violence is unacceptable) are trying to convince other individuals is to stop initiating force on us and/or supporting and condoning others doing so. I see no need to brand this attempt of "convincing" by some collectivist terminology such as "social contract". It's completely moot and irrelevant.

Humanity is consisted of nothing else but billions of individuals. Most of them probably never give the issue enough thought to really know if they actually support violence of the government or not. They're just "caught up in the situation". And most of them if you ask, they'll probably be convinced you're right, but discouraged by the amount of seeming opposition that is in the world to the idea that institutionalized coercion is not necessary. Apathy may be as big of a problem as statism.

If as a response to that you say, "we just need to change the social contract to be one consistent with NAP" you're doing exactly nothing to alleviate their discouragement. They perceive this "social" part as some sort of a huge entity that cannot possibly be persuaded, a mission impossible, not even worth trying. But if you approach them with an individualistic terminology: "It doesn't matter what others think. It may seem impossible to convince so many other individuals, but it is certainly not impossible to convince yourself, and that is how it starts. You don't grow a forest by growing all trees in an instant. You have to plant each tree individually, and once you plant them all, the forest will be there.

Banish all collectivist speak.

[Caleb]

I don't like the word "social contract" either.  But I think the point is that a social contract is a POSITIVE obligation.  "You MUST DO this or that".

The NAP is negative - "do not do this and that".

The problem comes in because you need at least one positive obligation to make the NAP obligatory. "You must obey the NAP" ... which is why I say that the foundation of any intelligible ethics rests on positive obligations.

Grennon - you are smart enough to know better than to base ethics on popular consent.

[Giggan]

Though I also dislike 'social contract' because of what philosophers have twisted it into, there is such a thing. No law needs to state that if you're in a freely accessible area (what they call 'public') that if someone stands in front of you, your right to toss your arms in that particular direction is lost. This need not be written anywhere, it is essential for humanity to function (to prohibit assaults). It is a negative obligation, but it is an obligation nonetheless. Perhaps the 'contract' piece is where it gets fuzzy, since the consent to the obligation isn't clear. But that, I feel, is a case where you need not speak the obligation for it to exist. I don't buy that an organization committing violence on your behalf constitutes 'an agreement'.

[dalebert]

I think of the NAP as a kind of social contract. There are varying degrees of establishing a contract. A statement made in earnest followed by a handshake is a contract. People put things in writing simply for an extra degree of security, but on a fundamental level, it just comes down to keeping promises between people.

There is an "implied" contract that's so common sense that it's practically a part of, or least founded upon, natural law. It's inherent in the better parts of human nature, our aptitude for being social creatures. There is the understanding that I treat another with the same respect that I would like to be treated. It even exists to a large extent in much of the animal world. Even a wild animal knows that if it attacks another animal, that animal will naturally do it's best to defend itself, and attack back.

I know on a very fundamental level that if I attack another person, they will react in much the same way that I would react in their shoes. There is an implied promise. I have forfeited my "promise" to respect their person and have therefore absolved them of the responsibility of upholding their side of the "contract" to respect my person, and at the bare minimum, their absolution extends out to the point at which I stop attacking them. Because we are very intelligent and socially advanced creatures (though you could prolly find animal species that give us a run for our money in that dept such as bonobo chimps or naked mole rats), we have much more elaborate methods of defense, including banding together with others who desire peace in order to maintain that peace.

It is a very sensible social contract. I simply contend that the attempt by many to distort that into the version we commonly hear to defend statism is a fraud used to exploit others to benefit an elitist hierarchy. The NAP as a pretty good approximation of the natural social contract is logically defensible. The statist version, on the other hand, falls apart when subjected to logical scrutiny.