government or chaos?

[stevep]

  Elsewhere, Zyobot suggested I had assumed government was automatically good rather than bad.  I replied that to be accurate I consider it necessary but its quality can vary massively depending on how its operated.  Zyobot then questioned that premise but didn't want to discuss the matter in that thread so I'm starting this one here. 

  Since some form of government is necessary for the maintenance of law and order - but not sufficient as if its weak or corrupted it can make such matters even worse - the alternatives are mob rule or simple chaos.  Either of those are likely to quickly evolve into some sort of formal government, if only by a local strongman taking over because such systems are so awful for ordinary people.

  Those are my conclusions anyway.  I would be interested in any alternative arguments.

  Note:  Possibly best if I define what I mean by government.  A systems which regulates interaction between people in a society or culture.  It can be relatively informal and simple in small cultures, like a small tribal chiefdom say.  Or with very large populations and/or territories it will be far more complex and sophisticated.  This doesn't necessarily mean heavily bureaucratic and this is a problem that often develops over time without careful control.

[Zyobot]

Thanks for this thread.

While I’m open to participating, though, I’ll first say I think it’s more appropriate for ‘Politics and Current Affairs’. As such, I’d recommend moving it from here to there, since the space it’s currently in isn’t exactly political debate-friendly.

[lordroel]

Jul 24, 2021 11:55:17 GMT Zyobot said:

Thanks for this thread.

While I’m open to participating, though, I’ll first say I think it’s more appropriate for ‘Politics and Current Affairs’. As such, I’d recommend moving it from here to there, since the space it’s currently in isn’t exactly political debate-friendly.

I agree, moved.

[stevep]

   Well Zyobot , you asked for a separate thread to be set up because I countered your misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Are you actually going to reply and possibly start your assumptions about government?  I would be interested in what your suggestions are for a 3rd alternative option in this case?

[Zyobot]

Jul 27, 2021 10:53:36 GMT stevep said:

   Well Zyobot , you asked for a separate thread to be set up because I countered your misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Are you actually going to reply and possibly start your assumptions about government?  I would be interested in what your suggestions are for a 3rd alternative option in this case?

First off: no, I didn't. It's perfectly fine that you set it up, but I simply asked that we discuss this somewhere that--per the rules--allowed for intense (but polite) discussion of political issues. For example, t could've been a short back-and-forth in an already-existing politics thread, though like I said, this is perfectly fine.

However, as it applies to the thread topic, I think you start with the classic assumption that government must exist in meaningful capacity to prevent The Purge from coming to life. Which is the default response, though I'd also think that people would come up with alternatives, such as a "bloc" of businesses pooling together money to fund a collective private security for their facilities, or neighborhoods with nearby households doing the same.

David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman and a luminary of more anarcho-capitalistic thought, elaborates on how privatized, polycentric law might work and rebuts some common counterarguments:

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

He also presents an interesting case for why market failure is an argument against government, which basically amounts to the negative incentives that come with individuals making their own decisions also applying to policymakers and government in general (i.e. the costs of their policies being borne by private citizens, thus removing the incentive to make careful decisions as if they affect them).

David Friedman | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

[stevep]

Jul 27, 2021 16:23:31 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 27, 2021 10:53:36 GMT stevep said:

   Well Zyobot , you asked for a separate thread to be set up because I countered your misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Are you actually going to reply and possibly start your assumptions about government?  I would be interested in what your suggestions are for a 3rd alternative option in this case?

First off: no, I didn't. It's perfectly fine that you set it up, but I simply asked that we discuss this somewhere that--per the rules--allowed for intense (but polite) discussion of political issues. For example, t could've been a short back-and-forth in an already-existing politics thread, though like I said, this is perfectly fine.

However, as it applies to the thread topic, I think you start with the classic assumption that government must exist in meaningful capacity to prevent The Purge from coming to life. Which is the default response, though I'd also think that people would come up with alternatives, such as a "bloc" of businesses pooling together money to fund a collective private security for their facilities, or neighborhoods with nearby households doing the same.

David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman and a luminary of more anarcho-capitalistic thought, elaborates on how privatized, polycentric law might work and rebuts some common counterarguments:

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

He also presents an interesting case for why market failure is an argument against government, which basically amounts to the negative incentives that come with individuals making their own decisions also applying to policymakers and government in general (i.e. the costs of their policies being borne by private citizens, thus removing the incentive to make careful decisions as if they affect them).

David Friedman | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

  Actually what happened was I made a factual statement, you made an inaccurate one about my position, I corrected it, you made another one and again I corrected it.  Then you huffily suggested we discuss it elsewhere as if it had been me who started the 'political' discussion.

  What is that private business force other than an attempt to apply their desires on other people?  Which can either be a form of government itself if it takes some attention of wider needs or a simple form of exploitation by force that can prompt others to combine against it?  What happens if someone disagrees with that cartel and its forces if there's no outside law to appeal to?

  I don't have time to look at the shorter video tonight but will try and look tomorrow after work if I remember.  If I find anything of value I will look at the other.

[Zyobot]

Jul 27, 2021 19:39:23 GMT stevep said:

Jul 27, 2021 16:23:31 GMT Zyobot said:

First off: no, I didn't. It's perfectly fine that you set it up, but I simply asked that we discuss this somewhere that--per the rules--allowed for intense (but polite) discussion of political issues. For example, t could've been a short back-and-forth in an already-existing politics thread, though like I said, this is perfectly fine.

However, as it applies to the thread topic, I think you start with the classic assumption that government must exist in meaningful capacity to prevent The Purge from coming to life. Which is the default response, though I'd also think that people would come up with alternatives, such as a "bloc" of businesses pooling together money to fund a collective private security for their facilities, or neighborhoods with nearby households doing the same.

David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman and a luminary of more anarcho-capitalistic thought, elaborates on how privatized, polycentric law might work and rebuts some common counterarguments:

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

He also presents an interesting case for why market failure is an argument against government, which basically amounts to the negative incentives that come with individuals making their own decisions also applying to policymakers and government in general (i.e. the costs of their policies being borne by private citizens, thus removing the incentive to make careful decisions as if they affect them).

David Friedman | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

  Actually what happened was I made a factual statement, you made an inaccurate one about my position, I corrected it, you made another one and again I corrected it.  Then you huffily suggested we discuss it elsewhere as if it had been me who started the 'political' discussion.

  What is that private business force other than an attempt to apply their desires on other people?  Which can either be a form of government itself if it takes some attention of wider needs or a simple form of exploitation by force that can prompt others to combine against it?  What happens if someone disagrees with that cartel and its forces if there's no outside law to appeal to?

  I don't have time to look at the shorter video tonight but will try and look tomorrow after work if I remember.  If I find anything of value I will look at the other.

I apologize for the late reply, as I've really been in the weeds with my C++ stuff. Don't have time to reply in-depth right now, though I hope to address your points in a clearer and more succinct way than I could now by sometime tomorrow. Already have some responses in my head, but it takes a bit for me to organize and formulate them into something coherent, as you may know.

[stevep]

Jul 27, 2021 16:23:31 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 27, 2021 10:53:36 GMT stevep said:

   Well Zyobot , you asked for a separate thread to be set up because I countered your misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Are you actually going to reply and possibly start your assumptions about government?  I would be interested in what your suggestions are for a 3rd alternative option in this case?

First off: no, I didn't. It's perfectly fine that you set it up, but I simply asked that we discuss this somewhere that--per the rules--allowed for intense (but polite) discussion of political issues. For example, t could've been a short back-and-forth in an already-existing politics thread, though like I said, this is perfectly fine.

However, as it applies to the thread topic, I think you start with the classic assumption that government must exist in meaningful capacity to prevent The Purge from coming to life. Which is the default response, though I'd also think that people would come up with alternatives, such as a "bloc" of businesses pooling together money to fund a collective private security for their facilities, or neighborhoods with nearby households doing the same.

David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman and a luminary of more anarcho-capitalistic thought, elaborates on how privatized, polycentric law might work and rebuts some common counterarguments:

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

He also presents an interesting case for why market failure is an argument against government, which basically amounts to the negative incentives that come with individuals making their own decisions also applying to policymakers and government in general (i.e. the costs of their policies being borne by private citizens, thus removing the incentive to make careful decisions as if they affect them).

David Friedman | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

  Zyobot,

  Watch the 1st video and some interesting ideas but I think he makes at least a couple of assumptions that I'm not sure would hold up.

a)  Where for instance he talks about two groups that believe in or oppose the death penalty.  He makes the assumption that the richer one - in this case those opposing the death penalty - will get their way and the other will accept cash for losing out.  Given how heated such an issue is and others I can see a lot of people refusing to accept they lose out to the other faction.  [Other cases might be on abortion, gun rights, drugs rules, religious viewpoints and education etc.]  In that case what happens if two enforcement bodies have funders who refuse to accept such an agreement?  Then wouldn't you fall back into the initial suggestion of conflict, possibly violent between the two enforcement agencies.

  There is actually a further complication here in which such interactions between two enforcement agencies affect other people with a 3rd agency.  What happens then if say someones suffered losses due to disruption/damage from such a clash and how their agencies - since there could be multiple people affected - get compensation from the 1st two.

b)  He also seems to assume not only are everybody willing to accept money for losing out but that which group that can pay the most money will therefore win.  This is likely to benefit the very wealthy and cause further imbalances in power and the like, which would inevitable prompt the disposed to seek other means for protection/redress.  Or even greater repression if the wealthy groups can fund powerful enough forces to suppress any opposition.

  Also what happens with corruption or simply when there's no clear answer as to who is right?  For instance in many rape cases it often becomes an issue of he said/she said and with many other crimes getting clear evidence as to what has happened and who is responsible, even when there is a general agreement between the two sides as to what is right and wrong.  Quite often you can get trials on a wide range of subjects were juries and other can't agree on what happened.  As such there is likely, with an honest judge, to be cases where he will often have to say "I don't know who is in the right".  Of course that could make him less attractive to the enforcement authorities as neither of them, nor their clients have won so there is a pressure for the judge to make a 'best guess'.  Which of course will outrage the party they judge against, especially when he's wrong.  This happens in the current system when you too frequently find decisions overturned because of new investigations/evidence sometimes years after the original verdict.  However in this scenario, unless the victim and their families has a lot of money how likely are they to get such decisions corrected?

   I also find it difficult to accept the idea that its easy for people to choose between assorted private agencies given the size of some and the amount of both data manipulation and sheer influence they can apply.  For instance how long were the big tobacco companies able to hide the damage their products caused and often falsify data simply because they had access to much more funds than their opponents. 

  Also he seems to assume that everybody is in the same society/country.  Which raises questions, especially given how easy international communications are nowadays, when there are disputes between people a long way apart.  Issues such as financial fraud are already often very difficult to identify let alone resolve but unless your assuming a world state in which all areas apply those rules how do you handle international crime/allegations?

  Anyway initial thoughts on the subject. - Will be browsing other sites so a quick response won't get a rapid response.

  Steve

[stevep]

  lordroel ,

   Given what you said today should this be in the governance thread as its more about that than politics.  I'm fairly flexible either way but its a better fit there than here as its something broader than politics.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 31, 2021 13:29:22 GMT stevep said:

  lordroel ,

   Given what you said today should this be in the governance thread as its more about that than politics.  I'm fairly flexible either way but its a better fit there than here as its something broader than politics.

  Steve

You right, fogot this tread was not there yet, moved.

[american2006]

I suppose I’ll give my take here. I will take the side that both unrestrained are bad. Governments should have the power to protect people’s lives liberties and pursuits of happiness. Additionally, the government should have power to protect other liberties such as speech. Chaos of course is bad, but unrestrained government power like what’s happening in Australia

[simon darkshade]

We’ve got unrestrained government power? To make that true, you need to shift the goalposts in a near Biblical fashion.

[american2006]

Aug 5, 2021 5:48:58 GMT simon darkshade said:

We’ve got unrestrained government power? To make that true, you need to shift the goalposts in a near Biblical fashion.

The fact that Australia can for entire provinces to shut down after only 3 COVID-19 deaths and block the ability to protest such actions is indeed unrestrained government power. The government can do as they wish in the land down under and there isn’t anything anyone else can do about it.

[simon darkshade]

Firstly, it is states, not provinces.

State governments can lock down quickly, as they are all haunted by what happened in Victoria where they screwed up and killed 900 people due to their venal incompetence.

As a general rule, the lockdowns have worked if they’ve gone in hard and quickly. These measures are supported by public opinion as seen in state elections that have occurred during the pandemic.

There is a legal right to protest in some situations, but not when it is against public health interests. This is not being done through executive fiat, but through statutory authority derived from democratically passed legislation. This is similar to emergency powers and legislation across the common law countries.

What can’t be done is people deciding that the rules and law do not apply to them for reason of their own individual beliefs. In this way, there is a similarity with the sovereign citizen mob, who like to dispute the rights of traffic police to pull them over for speeding. They fail in the courts and in the court of public opinion, just as the assorted lunatic fringe of anti-vaxxers, anti-mask and anti-lockdown types fail.

This simply isn’t a hill to die on and there is no legal right in any common law jurisdiction to break emergency legislation - not in Britain, Canada, New Zealand or the United States.

In the absence of real argument, rather than just rhetorical flourish and emotive claims, this isn’t comparable to real examples of unrestrained power, such as Red China, North Korea and others. There is the restraint of law and statute, even if it gives broad, sweeping powers.

Fundamentally, there is no carte blanche right to break the law anywhere.

Now, if you were to say that continual rolling lockdowns are pushing things, that they harm the economy and society, that governments are pursuing a zero Covid strategy because of their own incompetence and that there have been many petty individual abuses of authority, then you’d have a better point.

But that is not what you said.

Are you contending that other countries have the ability for individuals to legally challenge or legally break orders that come from democratically passed statutes? That is the crux of the matter here, not the differing positions adopted by, for example the Texan state government and that of South Australia.

On a final note, are you contending that the very notion of emergency powers is illegal? That would be very challenging to argue.