“Government is a necessary evil. And the greater the distance of the government from the effects of their decisions… the more evil government necessarily becomes.”
Comments?
PS
There are no bonus points for Googling the quote.
There’s always something to howl about.
“Government is a necessary evil. And the greater the distance of the government from the effects of their decisions… the more evil government necessarily becomes.”
Comments?
PS
There are no bonus points for Googling the quote.
Val McMurdie says:
The American housing market is now a creature of the federal government with FREDDIE, FANNY, and FHA along with the Federal Reserve in control of what segments of the market sell, which don’t, interest rates, mortgage terms, and who qualifies for what was historically an important part of the American Dream.
I like the quote “blood of tyrants need to water the tree of liberty” best.
October 6, 2009 — 8:28 am
Greg Swann says:
Evil is not necessary. Government exists because a few very sick people crave power over others and many, many other very sick people yearn to be absolved of the responsibilities imposed upon them by their inescapable autonomy.
October 6, 2009 — 8:54 am
Robert Worthington says:
Greg, you are right on. Big government is here. Say goodbye to capitalism; Washington knows best right?
October 6, 2009 — 9:58 am
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
I disagree with your premise. Government does not exist because of sick people – whatever their motivation may be. Government exists to the benefit and on consent of the governed. Our founding fathers wanted to create a new “club” that was far superior to anything the earth had witnessed thus far. All clubs need rules to distinguish their common beliefs and boundaries. When you have need for rules you necessarily have need for the structure to create, modify and remove the rules as the club grows and changes; otherwise it would stagnate and die rather rapidly.
Government is evil and power corrupts. People who aspire to power – from politicians to policemen – cause me concern. I believe we agree on this. But that is cause for limits on power and demands a responsible populace holding temporarily elected officials accountable. The absolute autonomy you yearn for though, does not seem at all realistic. It would require many small islands and negates the social contract.
I cede to your far superior knowledge of the Greeks; but I believe even Plato discussed and adhered to the idea of the social contract…
October 6, 2009 — 11:12 am
Greg Swann says:
> Our founding fathers wanted to create a new “club”
Nonsense. It’s not a club if you can’t quit. And if you can, it’s not a government. Words have meanings.
> I believe even Plato discussed and adhered to the idea of the social contract…
Plato was the inventor of the beehive idea of socialism we suffer under now.
> The absolute autonomy you yearn for though, does not seem at all realistic.
It’s not a matter of yearning. Human beings are autonomous causal agents as a matter of ontological fact — unavoidable, inescapable, undeniable. Our sickness — pandemically, throughout human history — results from attempting to avoid, escape and deny this fact.
To be more helpful: Every word you have ever read on the subject of political philosophy was an attempt to rationalize the author’s pet flavor of criminal irrationality. That’s why that stuff is written as religion — and why you and others defend it with the fervor of religionists — because it doesn’t bear up to rational scrutiny.
As an example, the 1789 coup de etat, defended with devout solemnity in The Federalist Papers, was a Rotarian Socialist compromise between northern merchants — who wanted to impose tariffs on foreign manufactured goods, thus to make their own crapy products more “competitive” — and Southern planters, who wanted the color of a “national” “sanction” for the scourge of chattel slavery. They gave the poor white folks all the Indian land they could steal to get them go along — and then martialled troops against them over the Whiskey Tax to make sure they knew their place. To call this anything other than gangsterism in a powdered wig is a childish fantasy.
In any case, governments don’t fail because people are corrupt. Governments fail because they cannot possibly fail to fail, because there is no alternative to self-control, because it is not possible — ever — to control another person’s purposive behavior.
As much as I dread all of the dipshit constraints the Obamabots want to impose upon indisputably free people, I am looking forward with delight to all the new underground markets that will be created. Imagine the local newsman’s horror when the suspected meth lab turns out to be a black-market incandescent light-bulb factory instead!
October 6, 2009 — 12:07 pm
Greg Swann says:
As a postscript, here are two interesting facts about the Whiskey Rebellion:
1. The onerous tax burden was on whiskey sold by the gallon, with the tax being much lighter on whiskey sold by the barrel. The Federal government’s troops were led into battle by none other than President George Washington — a prosperous distiller who sold his whiskey by the barrel. (And if you are dismayed to discover that “The Father of Our Country” was a Rotarian Socialist, you deserve the government you’re getting.)
2. The black-market distillers who refused to pay the tax moved on to Kentucky — beyond Federal jurisdiction at the time — where they invented Bourbon.
Government is force — George Washington said that — and the fundamental purpose of government force is to annihilate everything that is uniquely human in human life.
October 6, 2009 — 1:22 pm
Teri Lussier says:
>The absolute autonomy you yearn for though, does not seem at all realistic. It would require many small islands and negates the social contract.
I disagree. Absolute autonomy would require absolute responsibility on the part of each individual, but Sean, it would also require complete cooperation within society.
Sorry, I’m not well-read enough to quote Greeks, or modern philosophers to back up my ideology, it’s just something that’s in my bones.
It’s not been done before because it’s so very scary for people to absorb complete responsibility for themselves- no safety nets of blame. But that’s where the societal behavior, contracts, balances, come into play. You have to work things out. You have to think things through. You have to be thoughtful, and Sean, to use one of your favorite words- you’d have to be purposeful. You’d have to live and act with a clear thought out purpose. How exhilarating!!! Think of the possibilities!! What if we all behaved with utter responsibility, and thoughtfulness of purpose! Oh wow. What a beautiful world- each of us revered and honored for our own truest selves.
October 6, 2009 — 12:00 pm
Teri Lussier says:
>I am looking forward with delight to all the new underground markets that will be created.
That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking about. Every day I become aware of the opportunity for someone to fill a market need for a valued product. We will quite possibly see a new era in entrepreneurship.
October 6, 2009 — 1:15 pm
Greg Swann says:
> We will quite possibly see a new era in entrepreneurship.
I started writing about this thirty years ago. As every poindexter will tell you, the essence of modern market capitalism is the clearinghouse function — trading goods for goods by means of a trading medium, a currency. If you peer into your computer screen long enough, you will see monopoly states crumbling to dust before your very eyes. We are on the cusp of illimitable human liberty, and this is why the statists are so frantic to chain us down tight right now. They can’t enslave us if they can’t catch us.
October 6, 2009 — 1:31 pm
Teri Lussier says:
>We are on the cusp of illimitable human liberty, and this is why the statists are so frantic to chain us down tight right now. They can’t enslave us if they can’t catch us.
Exactly. And I’m seeing this on the street. You might not see it in cool-kid circles in the cool-kid cities, but out here where land, real estate, and people have been forgotten, I’m seeing a small quiet revolution. There are benefits to flying under the radar. You may chortle at the Rust Belt, and you might have good reason, but in Dayton, where many of us are descended from those Kentucky moonshiners, we understand the price of liberty, and the price of selling our souls to the company store- in all its guises.
October 6, 2009 — 1:46 pm
Greg Swann says:
> You may chortle at the Rust Belt, and you might have good reason, but in Dayton, where many of us are descended from those Kentucky moonshiners, we understand the price of liberty, and the price of selling our souls to the company store- in all its guises.
My first book was based in this premise, that the Rust Belt was the perfect place for under-the-radar manufacturing. (Haven’t looked at it in years, and I’d probably regard it as pretty clumsy by now, but it was full of the kinds of themes I love to rhapsodize about. Dalton, Ohio, incidentally; I made it up, but it was modeled on the town where I grew up. I should go and see if there is something worth extracting from that text.)
October 6, 2009 — 1:57 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
Love your passion but seriously, do you believe any of that possible anywhere beyond your imagination? “Absolute” responsibility and “complete” cooperation do not exist anywhere on this planet and never have (there are no “good old days” when it comes to human behavior). It would be nice if it rained beer and skittles once a week too, but don’t hold your breath. 🙂
People do not cooperate on a wide scale. People fight and kill on a wide scale. Listen, I’m not belittling your vision. As you said, my philosophy revolves around living a purposeful life of passion. And I prefer a naked form of capitalism beyond most people’s comfort zone, but I am also aware of man’s inherent animal instincts. See Greg’s self-defeating argument re our history of avoiding that which we are.
You see a club where all of the members are “revered and honored for (their) own truest selves”… what do you do with the people who choose not to revere and honor you? (Now I’m discussing the inherent problem with our modern social contract – no chance to opt out – which Greg also touches on.)
I want minimal government, minimal laws, maximum responsibility. But I also want to enjoy the benefits of being a member of the club. Balancing those two opposing desires is the key to society.
October 6, 2009 — 2:49 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
Of all your many philosophies and beliefs, I enjoy this one of autonomy the most. You set the bar at a height which cannot be reached, but by doing so you raise the expectations of others. I commend you for that. Having said this, I also wish to point out that you speak of a reality that has never been seen, and exists only by faith, with the passion of a preacher. Yet you choose to use subtle ad hominems like “why you and others defend it with the fervor of religionists.” You lack the capability (and probably the stomach) to see inside my head so characterizing my intent (to “defend”) or my passion (“the fervor”) or the company I keep (“and others”) is not only incorrect – it’s misleading.
“Every word you have ever read on the subject of political philosophy was an attempt to rationalize the author’s pet flavor of criminal irrationality” is true, not just for political philosophy but any philosophy: God exists, God does not exist, life has purpose, life is random, we have free choice, we are fated, etc. All philosophy is a beautiful exercise of the mind… but also an explanation of a particular criminal irrationality.
Governments fail because people are corrupt. They can’t possibly fail to be corrupt. Government as an institution is simply a concept. In reality it lives and breathes the foibles of those who participate. Where government fails most is where it tries “to control another person’s purposive behavior.” But that does not mean government itself should disappear. It is a necessary evil in service of a cooperative community. It fails on ever grander scales when it assumes a role beyond defense of liberty and into constraint of liberty. The answer though cannot be found in the wonderland of Teri’s vision, nor the jungle of your complete autonomy. It must be found through continued expansion and contraction of the beast for our benefit.
Unfortunately, you are all too right when you say: “Nonsense. It’s not a club if you can’t quit.” The social contract makes sense only in that there is an opt out. That is possible now, but living someplace so remote would be difficult beyond most people’s ability… even those who espouse such a desire for it. On the other hand, your comment “If you can, it’s not a government” makes little sense and then only on a limited scale. There are plenty of governments on this planet which allow you to leave if you so desire – America being one of them. What you mean to say is you want to “stay” and enjoy many of the benefits of the club but without adhering to the clubs bylaws; in which case you are right. I know of only one club that allows that: the church. Words do have meaning.
October 6, 2009 — 3:18 pm
Greg Swann says:
Look, Sean, you’re wasting your own time, but that’s your business. I know more about this than anyone you will ever meet — I know this because I know everyone in my philosophical neighborhood. If you want to know what I know, all you have to do is ask. If you want to sing your hymns for me, I’m gone. You don’t get to waste my time. I don’t mean to insult you, but everything you have to say on this topic is monkeytalk to me, a cargo-cultist’s discourse on physics. When you figure out that you have imbibed nothing but lies for your entire life, come back to me. I don’t hold grudges.
October 6, 2009 — 3:39 pm
Sean Purcell says:
What a fascinating discussion. I’m off to little league but I hope it continues later.
October 6, 2009 — 3:32 pm
Greg Swann says:
> What a fascinating discussion. I’m off to little league but I hope it continues later.
Here, I’ll help you as much as I can:
You can prove to yourself that your theories of government, along with everyone else’s, are complete crap with this one simple experiment:
Compel me to have respect for your theories of government.
If you can do that, you win. Unfortunately, you can’t, and — therefore — you and everyone else have been engaged in a futile — and massively fatal — pursuit for thousands of years.
Now if you want to continue to sing hymns, go ahead. But there is no possible doubt that the god of your religion does not exist. You cannot “govern” other people’s behavior. The sane thing to do is to stop trying.
October 6, 2009 — 4:18 pm
Teri LUssier says:
>People do not cooperate on a wide scale. People fight and kill on a wide scale.
Bullshit.
Sean, I know what I sound like. I can stand back and hear it from your ears, and that’s why I rarely say this stuff out loud. You think I’m either smoking some good stuff, or just naive. But here’s the thing- how many people have you fought and killed today? Yesterday? All the folks you know been out raping and pillaging today? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
We want to believe in each other. I know this to be true, and it’s a fact. Every time you get behind the wheel of the your car, you merge onto the 15? or I-5 or whatever, you are merging. With other people. In assault vehicles. And you all do your best to cooperate, and work together. Without the government’s help or blessing or whatever it is you think you need from the government.
And at the little league game, did anyone get bludgeoned with one of those assault weapons, commonly referred to as a baseball bat? Was it because gov’t reps were there to make sure little Tyler and little Jasmine behaved? No, it’s because we are cooperative with each other because we don’t want things to go wrong. Simplistic? No. Every time you leave your home, you put yourself at the mercy of the world. And for most of us, it works.
>what do you do with the people who choose not to revere and honor you?
Come on!!! What would you do? What do we do with them now? Is that working? Government in all its forms and mutations still hasn’t figured out a way to stop that.
You can only be responsible for your own behavior, and if you/we take on and take back and take over that responsibility, instead of abdicating it to someone or something else, we must, in turn honor that in the next person.
It’s so basic. It’s simple, really really simple. We learn this stuff in preschool. Don’t stab your table partner with scissors. Don’t push the kid in front of you down the steps. Basic. We don’t do it, NOT because Teacher is watching, we don’t do it because we empathize, we can understand, even at 2 or 3 or 4 years old, that it’s not right, and we don’t want to do wrong against someone else, because 99% of the time, we treat people the way we want to be treated.
Greg sums it up, Sean:
>You cannot “govern” other people’s behavior. The sane thing to do is to stop trying.
October 6, 2009 — 5:21 pm
James Boyer says:
The more local the government is, the more likely it is corrupt.
October 6, 2009 — 8:56 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
Let me see if I have this straight. Your two points are:
1. I know more about this than anyone you will ever meet – This is not a fact or a point or an idea or even a reply to the ongoing discussion. It may be the most hubris I have ever witnessed though, and that’s saying something given the educational, athletic and business circles I’ve traveled. Speaking of which, you have no idea who I’ve met, which only makes this little bit of vanity all the more pointless.
2. You can prove to yourself that your theories of government, … are complete crap with this one simple experiment: Compel me to have respect for your theories of government. If you can do that, you win. Unfortunately, you can’t
Are you having someone else write this for you? Are you seriously suggesting that a theory being discussed is judged valid or invalid (crap) based on your ability to grasp it? I thought the last point defined hubris. Greg, this is circular and you damn well know it.
Let’s try again. To enjoy the benefits of the club you must acquiesce to limit some of your choices. This is by definition a limit on your freedom. The fact that you cannot (or choose not) to leave the club is none of my concern. Instead, I concern myself with the awesome potential for disaster in empowering a government to enact and enforce those caps. As great as that danger is, the alternative – your alternative – is anarchy (the very definition of anarchy). If you don’t like the fact that all laws are eventually enforced at the point of a gun, try on “might makes right” as a social norm. “We can have rape and we can have pillage but by God we won’t stand for laws” …utter nonsense.
You are acknowledging one of man’s basic traits as: “autonomous, causal agents” while ignoring many others. Man is also brutal. Man is also social. Man, more than anything else possibly, acts in his own best interest over the long run. That means even though you may not wish to join in any group, others will. And those groups will take what you have and leave you behind because their group has sacraficed some of their selfish and self-interested acts in order to gain even greater rewards of self-interest. This ability to reason in a temporal line is one of the things that separates us from other species… that and the fact that since the beginning of man we have in fact done just what I am saying. What we have not done is decide to all live together in some type of harmonious orgy of non-violent self-interest. Not once and not ever. You said so much yourself in your very first comment.
You say: you cannot “govern” other people’s behavior. The sane thing to do is to stop trying as if this was some truth. Of course I can. I can govern your behavior through marketing, trickery, passion, reward, force and so on and so on. Hell, you rail against the home loan tax deduction because it does exactly that! (I agree with you 100% by the way.) In any case, this is not my point. It’s not a point anyone ever made until you and Teri brought it up to negate something that was never said. Laws (and by extension the government) should rightfully be limited to protecting my basic liberties and that is all. That the government does try to govern my behaviors is a massive problem for individuals as well as the club, but we do not disagree so why does it come up? Here is a simple question: Because power corrupts and government tries to grow and empower itself (organizational entities are no different than living entities) do you believe we’d be better off with lawlessness? This is pure Ayn Rand stuff and I’m not going to repeat it again here because you already know it.
Finally, it’s been my experience that when someone says I don’t mean to insult you, but… most often the next thing they say is going to be pretty damn insulting. I am not wasting my time. Again, you lack the ability to see inside my head; you know neither the value of my time nor what benefit I derive from this discussion. You are correct, of course, when you say I don’t get to waste your time. Since no one can waste your time buy you this is a bit of simple sophistry, but true nevertheless. You came to this comment string of your own accord. If you have something to add it will not be a waste of my time to listen. Otherwise, stay out and spend your time on something you consider useful.
October 6, 2009 — 9:30 pm
Greg Swann says:
> must acquiesce
Sean, when you find yourself “hot under the collar,” it almost always means you are making claims you cannot defend in reason. As I said, everything you are saying is monkeytalk to me, childish gibberish, with the two words quoted above being perfect examples. If you can “must” someone into “acquiescence,” you are talking about a real phenomenon. If you cannot, you are talking about a product of the imagination.
Incidentally, the Greek who matters in this debate is not Plato but Socrates, who died proving to you and to everyone that no human being can be “musted” into “acquiescence.”
Governments fail because they are all based in monkeytalk, childish gibberish. The governments that seem to succeed are the ones that are least at war with the actual, incontrovertible, inextinguishable autonomous nature of human beings. In other words, people are least like to rebel against small governments — not because they are sane, but because their insanities are too inconsequential to bother with. We eradicate ants because they eat the seed stock, but we just swat at gnats and then press on regardless.
Do you understand? The most sacred word in government — the hallowed idea of “legitimacy” — either means, “Not worth fighting about” or “I don’t think we can win.” It is nothing more than a calculus of cowardice. All government is illegitimate — and all of us know it.
There is nothing you or anyone can do to stop human beings from being autonomous causal agents — short of killing them, which is a function at which all governments excel — so it were wise of you to stop trying.
In any case, you can stop thumping your bible at me. I don’t have time to write responses to sermons I haven’t taken the time to read. You don’t know what you are talking about, but that puts you in a vast company. If you come to realize that I do, please feel free to ask me questions.
October 7, 2009 — 7:25 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
Shall I send you the newspaper filled with yesterday’s horrors? Of course I didn’t do any of those things. And, as you said, not because anyone was watching or not watching. I try to lead a very purposeful life and I do what I believe to be right. (Simple test: when you come to a four way stop on an empty road at three in the morning.. do you stop? Why?) The answer to that question is the answer to your questions. We stop because we’ve ceded some of our freedom in order to make the roads safer and more efficient.
Laws exist not because the majority of people would act like savages if they didn’t exist; we create these laws because a minority do. Think about it: if the majority of people choose to act a certain way than it most likely is not against the law. This has nothing to do with right and wrong. Do you believe capital punishment is right or wrong? Personally, I don’t believe the government has the right to take a life no matter the crime. Most people disagree so capital punishment continues. On the other hand, I believe that an individual most definitely has the right to take a life for that same crime. Most people disagree with me so that is illegal.
This is all so off topic. The government is an inherent evil but a necessary one too. When it is limited to protecting my three basic rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) it serves its function with the least evil. When government believes it knows best and looks to govern my behavior it is a monster of evil that must be broken… and rebuilt. I am quite sure, despite your belief in the goodness of people, that you would not enjoy even a few days of absolute lawlessness… even if it were raining beer and skittles.
October 6, 2009 — 9:42 pm
Joe Hayden says:
I directly descend from well-known KY moonshiners – does that get me into this conversation?
I don’t need government in my life. I have no need for an organized, powerful government intertwined in my life. Absolutely none… I cannot conjure up $0.50 words nor $5.00 phrases to convey that to another beyond what you read. I just know it as a fact.
Government represents a hindrance to my personal liberty. Government places punishing bounds on my life in an attempt to level me with others. Government does not give us freedom, it shapes and molds “freedom” until you no longer recognize it when you see it.
Many of us beg for a Constitutional government, but most fail to see how that sentiment again rewards Liberty with “freedom”. Government still is, and will always remain, the problem – it is in direct conflict with Liberty.
What is the solution? Government isn’t going anywhere anytime soon – too many sheep, too many fools and tools, too many who crave the power to oppress. In the short-term, I can only see one solution; live your life devoid of “government”. Do not let it enter your mind. Be free… Live, love, enjoy, get educated and educate.
For the long view, I do not have the answers… I’m still getting educated. Humans are flawed in many ways and government is an enticing solution to that problem, but I am not certain that it is the only solution.
October 6, 2009 — 9:43 pm
Greg Swann says:
> In the short-term, I can only see one solution; live your life devoid of “government”. Do not let it enter your mind. Be free… Live, love, enjoy, get educated and educate.
Excellent. How do you get rid of the Boojum under the bed? You grow out of it.
October 7, 2009 — 6:58 am
Sean Purcell says:
James,
Not too sure I agree with your premise; distance tends to veil transparency in my opinion. But even if it were true I argue that the more local the government the more accountable the politicians. More to the point, the more local the government the more specific the actions and decisions. E.g. a small local government does not tax me to redistribute my wealth to welfare recipients beyond the direct reach of my help. The local government is concerned with issues that I am concerned and connected with, thus creating a more engaged populace. I suggest that may trump increased corruption… if it does in fact exist.
October 6, 2009 — 9:51 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Joe,
I fear I’m beginning to repeat myself. Please don’t confuse your anger (which I share) at the current form of evil incarnate we call a government, with some idealized society lacking all government. Or at least, if you do, think about some of the negatives. We all look to serve our best interest over time. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can sure put a damper on a lot of the freedoms you cherish. What if, in my opinion, my best interests are served by living in your home. Shall we duel in the street? Maybe I will ambush you one night. Hey, what if I moved in while you were gone, threw away all your belongings and changed the locks? No way to arbitrate this one because we have no rules. Just autonomous, causal activity. I am responsible for my actions. So what; you’re still out a home. Unless, of course, you come after me in much the same way… sounds like a real utopia.
October 6, 2009 — 9:59 pm
Joe Hayden says:
That idealized society you speak of couldn’t be populated by humans, no doubt.
I’m not making any calls for a boundless society in my argument. I’m merely stating our current system of government fails tragically to honor true Liberty for the society governed…
I believe this simple phrase is very true – we receive the government we deserve. It reflects back upon society the “now” of our growth as a people. That utopia you mention cannot exist in absence of a powerful, absolute individual self-governance (if you will allow the analogy). Left to our own devices today, man stands a chance of destroying himself without some form of external “government”.
I choose to focus on self-government. I can and will embrace that responsibility.
October 6, 2009 — 10:26 pm
Teri says:
>Shall I send you the newspaper filled with yesterday’s horrors? Of course I didn’t do any of those things. And, as you said, not because anyone was watching or not watching. I try to lead a very purposeful life and I do what I believe to be right.
>Laws exist not because the majority of people would act like savages if they didn’t exist; we create these laws because a minority do.
Sean, do you need laws to tell you how to live? And as you’ve just pointed out, the laws, tons and tons and tons of laws that do exist, do not stop the behavior of a few.
So what is the purpose of government?
It’s not a necessary evil, it’s just an evil. It doesn’t do the one thing you hire it to do- control the behavior of a few, and society itself sets standards for the behavior of the vast majority of us.
>When it is limited to protecting my three basic rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) it serves its function with the least evil.
That, I agree with, but I don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s necessary.
I don’t ever look to the government to determine what is right or wrong, and from what you’ve just told me, you don’t either. So people who have a measure of ethics in them don’t look to the government to determine right or wrong, and people who have no internal censors for right and wrong don’t look to the government to control their behavior. So… Why is it necessary?
We are creative thinking people. We can come up with alternatives to government to get things done. We can live our lives that way. Just like driving on the interstate at rush hour, the vast majority of us do just fine. Yes, we have lines on the road, we have rules for the road, because we all (most) want things to work well.
Sit at a playground on a busy sunny day. It’s all self-governed behavior- the kids, the moms. Why isn’t it complete chaos? Laws? Government? Nancy Pelosi? Hardly. It’s because we want things to work, not to avoid jail, but very very simply, because the world is a better place when that happens, and we know that. It’s simple. It’s so simple, we discount it.
At this point, I could share how mothers actually govern all behavior, and government exists because some big puffy menfolk with mommy issues decided they didn’t want to listen to their mothers, but I’ll save that for later. 🙂
October 7, 2009 — 4:47 am
Greg Swann says:
> the laws, tons and tons and tons of laws that do exist, do not stop the behavior of a few.
When Joe Stalin was a teenager, he killed a cow for practice. Killing animals is a common event in the lives of young sociopaths. The local villagers were “cowed,” as it were, and did nothing. If we imagine Americans of about the same time, what would have happened?
The answer: One round to the torso to bring him down, then another round between the eyes to finish him off. Would this be “perfect” justice? No. Would it have been an actionable injustice, a tort? Yes. But had those villagers dared to act on their own autonomous moral authority, nipping an incipient mass-murderer in the bud once he had made his nature known, seventy million innocent lives would have been saved.
We are almost none of us mad dogs, but the few who are have to be put down. I could make an argument that the actual purpose of government is to insure the safety of mad dogs. Why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still walking around, unassassinated? Why did Joe Stalin live to kill seventy million innocent people? Don’t tell me it’s because we have too little government!
October 7, 2009 — 8:02 am
Sean Purcell says:
Joe,
I’m merely stating our current system of government fails tragically to honor true Liberty for the society governed…
Amen brother, amen.
October 7, 2009 — 6:12 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
I really loathe this argument because it forces me to acknowledge and offer as proof the very behaviors in others I abhor. I am, overall, an optimistic man who meets each person I come across with a base trust. But it doesn’t always work out. Amos Alonzo Stagg once said: “Treat all men with respect and as your equal, until they prove their unworthiness to be so treated.” I think that about covers it for me.
I’ve watched the same playgrounds as you and I’ve seen the lunch money taken, the kids who were different excluded from games, the bullies making up the rules as they go along and so forth. Please Teri, we cannot continue to debate the nature of man: there is good and bad. A very small minority of bad, left unchecked, makes things pretty tough for the vast majority of good.
You are making my point exactly when you say the laws and the government don’t stop the bad behavior. We are in agreement that the government should not try to govern behavior. The fact that they spend most of their time doing so now, as Joe said, reflects poorly on us as the stewards and employers of the government. The purpose of limited government is to enforce the ramifications of breaking the club’s codes, not to prevent it from happening. Protecting my liberty, not legislating it. I know you see the difference, but you continue to throw up a pollyanna world where everyone looks after their best interest while respecting each other. That doesn’t exist now, can you imagine what it would be like if we played by playground rules?
This debate is beginning to run wide. The enforcement of club rules is one but there are a few other purposes for a national government: national defense (not to be confused with the consumerism-based, currency inflating, unpatriotic, unjustified and activist military activities we engage in now), international treaties… and that may be it. They have no business legislating commerce or behavior. I do expect them, however, to enforce the rules we have all agreed to as members of the club. If a person doesn’t agree to the rules, doesn’t believe in the system and therefore act to change the rules and doesn’t want to be a member of the club – by all means that person should find somewhere else to live.
One last point. You say that
but is that really true? I’ve already given you the example of my belief that I most certainly have the right to take the life of someone who has gravely wronged me or my family. I don’t only because the rules of the club say I’ll be punished, so I follow the rules. Are you telling me there isn’t anything you’d do differently if it were legal? If the answer is yes, as it is for me, then we must in turn fear a community where each person gets to choose there own base lines (in my case: what defines a grave enough wrong that I feel justified in taking your life).
I have yet to see anyone provide even one example of people living without organization and rules. Even nuns in the convent have rules. If they desire rules to make there lives better, can you imagine the rest of us?
October 7, 2009 — 6:39 am
Teri Lussier says:
>Are you telling me there isn’t anything you’d do differently if it were legal?
I do things because they are right.
There are plenty of things that I don’t do because they are wrong, even though they are legal.
Not those playgrounds, Sean, those are school playgrounds. I’m talking about pre-school, before school- before public school, government school, before that happens to us, we get along very well. Not perfectly, of course, but conflict resolution is quick, simple, and easily forgotten.
>I have yet to see anyone provide even one example of people living without organization and rules.
I’m not talking about a life without organization or rules or unchecked behavior. I’m asking why you need the government to organize, create rules, check behavior.
>but you continue to throw up a pollyanna world
Sean, just because the world I see is not brutish, that does not make it pollyanna.
October 7, 2009 — 7:43 am
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
I am disappointed in you. Discussing ideas is an exercise of man’s true gift: reason. That you choose to do otherwise is a loss for all of us.
Sean, when you find yourself “hot under the collar,” it almost always means you are making claims you cannot defend in reason
More obfuscation and nonsense. No one is “hot under the collar.” One of us is presenting ideas and the other is childishly stomping his feet and saying “I’m smarter than everyone in the room. Therefore you must accept my theory without question.” When you stop offering ideas and begin attacking others – that’s when it becomes apparent you are making claims you cannot defend in reason.
Did you seriously say you’re not reading the comments but commenting on them anyway? That would explain your gratuitous “thumping your bible” line, as no one has brought religion or the bible into this debate.
Please, Greg, take your ball and go home. You’ve become a churlish bore in your own house…
October 7, 2009 — 9:24 am
Greg Swann says:
> Discussing ideas is an exercise of man’s true gift: reason.
You’re attempting to proselytize for your beliefs, Sean. Your beliefs are contrary to fact, as has been demonstrated over and over again, and so what you are hoping to talk about is religion, not reason.
> No one is “hot under the collar.”
Uh, huh.
> I find myself in the nauseating position of defending the government when I in fact find it evil in almost all iterations.
You might do us the favor of naming the iterations you think are not evil. I took away “The Founding Fathers” yesterday. Rome was a cesspit of corruption. There was much to admire in Athens, but much more to despise. If you would be kind enough to name a real government from history that was not a criminal cabal with a fancy pedigree, that would do a lot, I expect, to clarify your own thinking.
At the same time, you could prepare a list of names of the incorruptible humans who are to be left in charge of the future imaginary perfect state. This was Plato’s claim, for what it’s worth, but he knew it was bullshit.
> We are thus charged with a terrific responsibility to contain the beast, but I don’t see any other realistic outcome.
If you don’t put mad dogs down, eventually they try to take over. Colonel Colt solved that problem.
And none of that matters. What you claim to be afraid of — without, as Teri points out, any direct experience — are in fact secondary consequences of government. As an example, without the drug laws, there would be virtually no property crimes, burglaries or robberies. You claim to cower in fear of imaginary demons, but the actual real world referents of your fears are almost entirely creatures of the state. All this while your wealth is actually being confiscated by the real criminals — the ones with the pedigree — to the tune of at least forty cents on the dollar!
What part of that do you think I should regard as being a respectable intellectual position?
> You’ve become a churlish bore
People with their eyes open disagree. I am not kind, and I know I suffer fools and foolishness badly, but I am endlessly giving to people who are open to the truth.
I know you think you are saying profoundly important things, but it’s all just crap you read in the books they stuffed into your brain to get you to put up with the current criminal cabal. Until now, you could be excused for being in error. You were much deceived. But now that the actual facts of the matter have been presented to you, to persevere in this way is not mere error but obstinance. When you cling to deceit knowing that it is deceit, this is not respectable, not reason — and not worth bothering with.
But this is where I live: People almost never think when they’re comfortable. It’s when some idea disquiets you deeply that you are most likely to actually use that mass of fatty tissue that keeps your ears from collapsing on each other. You have nothing to teach me about this topic, Sean. I have been thinking and writing about it for thirty years, and none of this is new to me. But everything I have to say on the subject is new to you, and your rejection of it is precisely the reaction I expect from people who do not intend to open their eyes to truths they have not considered.
Your business, dude. You are one among a vast company who share the religious belief that that which has never failed to fail can somehow be made to succeed, and that which has never been observed to be anything other than a criminal cabal can somehow be managed incorruptibly. You can say whatever you want. Here is all I can think of to say: How stupid is that?
In any case, I represent no threat to you, nor to your sacred cult, nor to its many, many cultists. There is no threat whatever that the sheep will suddenly rise up against the wolves. My hope is that 1776 is not the last time they will have dared to try.
For inlookers: This debate is not about what you believe, what you want to believe or what you hope to conjure into being if only you can just believe hard enough. It’s about the world as it really is. Purposive human behavior is solely internally motivated. You cannot “govern” other people. The sane thing to do is to stop trying.
More from me, for a start, at Meet the Third Thing.
Mind what goes into your mind…
October 7, 2009 — 11:59 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
I envy you and the world you desire. I would be first in line if I thought it realistic.
I must bow out of this discussion now. I find myself in the nauseating position of defending the government when I in fact find it evil in almost all iterations. I simply believe that whatever you wish to call your “organizations,” they will eventually morph into “government.” We are thus charged with a terrific responsibility to contain the beast, but I don’t see any other realistic outcome.
I’ve enjoyed your ideas and your passion. I believe we are talking past each other at this point and maybe we will engage again over another aspect of this very important idea. Overall, however, this string is devolving and I don’t want to be a part of that. Thank you Teri!
October 7, 2009 — 9:33 am
Teri says:
Sean-
While you are no longer participating in this conversation, I want to clarify for the person wondering past in the future: I never said “organizations”. I said organization, as in order. I don’t want a world without order, which is the typical knee-jerk reaction to a world without government, I want self-order. Doable. Completely doable if it were permitted, encouraged, cultivated.
>I find myself in the nauseating position of defending the government when I in fact find it evil in almost all iterations.
How very sad for you.
October 7, 2009 — 12:01 pm