Climate Change Study Finds U.s. Is Already Widely Affected

[Anomaly]

I think there's a distinction to be made between working with someone and working under them. "Cooperation" is mutual. If it's forced, that mutuality is damaged. Someone might well choose to submit to an attacker, but I wouldn't really call that "cooperation". I know it's commonly used to signify obedience to an authority figure under threat of violence. I think that's a real coup for the thugs.

Sorry, but the nature of current human society has created necessary interdependence which is complex and not always obvious. Your hypothetical constraints of only voluntary cooperation regardless of the perception of a need or crisis does not nullify the existence of the problem that faces society as a whole, with little or no apparent effect on individuals.

Only small and stratified communities that can limit their effects to small voluntary participants and small geographical areas are possible in your scenario. Good luck with that. Either tune in or drop out. It's easy to broadly condemn the general policy while referencing the few problems. But again, that tendency is human nature as well.

[Winchester]

Being sanctioned or fired is a form of violence against them, as without pay they will be unable to procure the things needed to survive. If you're being made to cooperate by having a paycheck held over your head, then your cooperation is not completely voluntary.

 

We see lots of instances of voluntary cooperation, but we see many instances too where people refuse to voluntarily cooperate to the detriment of other people besides themselves. In these situations a legal system of lawful coercion and even violence seems to be necessary. Human beings have relied on this method for centuries and have found nothing else to replace it yet.

 

I should have been more specific: it's not an initiation of violence. I was merely addressing your apparent belief that nobody can voluntarily cooperate in difficult situations without a third party forcing them.

 

Yes, in order to get paid for a job, you have to do that job. Does that strike you as inherently unjust?

 

Are you saying that it's lawful to force people to help others? Could I put a gun to your head to make you help me search a burning house?

[Winchester]

Sorry, but the nature of current human society has created necessary interdependence which is complex and not always obvious. Your hypothetical constraints of only voluntary cooperation regardless of the perception of a need or crisis does not nullify the existence of the problem that faces society as a whole, with little or no apparent effect on individuals.

Only small and stratified communities that can limit their effects to small voluntary participants and small geographical areas are possible in your scenario. Good luck with that. Either tune in or drop out. It's easy to broadly condemn the general policy while referencing the few problems. But again, that tendency is human nature as well.

It's a normative stance. Expediency does not justify aggression. I'm well aware of human nature, and I didn't say that anything was nullified. I simply don't condone evil in the name of the greater good, and I view aggression as inherently evil. Nothing I've said denies interdependence, it just rejects that there is a special class of human exempt from the moral laws that bind everyone else.

[arfink]

I should have been more specific: it's not an initiation of violence. I was merely addressing your apparent belief that nobody can voluntarily cooperate in difficult situations without a third party forcing them.

 

Yes, in order to get paid for a job, you have to do that job. Does that strike you as inherently unjust?

 

Are you saying that it's lawful to force people to help others? Could I put a gun to your head to make you help me search a burning house?

 

You're over simplifying again.

 

The use of violence as a means of obtaining cooperation is not inherently immoral or unjust. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS lawful to force people to help others, but there are situations where justice would demand that.
 

[Winchester]

You're over simplifying again.

 

The use of violence as a means of obtaining cooperation is not inherently immoral or unjust. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS lawful to force people to help others, but there are situations where justice would demand that.
 

 

Describe one.

[4588686]

 

Yes, in order to get paid for a job, you have to do that job. Does that strike you as inherently unjust?

 

Are you saying that it's lawful to force people to help others? Could I put a gun to your head to make you help me search a burning house?

 

 

No, but, and I think this is where we branch of normatively, you start at the point after primitive accumulation of capital at which point violence is already an integral part of the system and then want to perpetuate that system as thought it's sui generis or the wage relationship between people is somehow natural.  

 

It's not clear to me why, given the normative claims of anarcho-capitalism, people have any initial right to accumulate the common resources of the world to their private use unless they have the continued and universal consent of humanity.  

 

I think that property is a useful institution.  But I don't deny the inherent violence of it.  

[arfink]

Describe one.

 

OK, imagine this. You enter my house and take all my food. Then you decide you'd also like my wife or children to come with you. I and the friendly local police officer who I summon to my abode tell you not to, and you refuse to cooperate.

 

I think we're more than justified to use force on you to make you cooperate.

[Winchester]

No, but, and I think this is where we branch of normatively, you start at the point after primitive accumulation of capital at which point violence is already an integral part of the system and then want to perpetuate that system as thought it's sui generis or the wage relationship between people is somehow natural.  

 

It's not clear to me why, given the normative claims of anarcho-capitalism, people have any initial right to accumulate the common resources of the world to their private use unless they have the continued and universal consent of humanity.  

 

I think that property is a useful institution.  But I don't deny the inherent violence of it.  

 

I don't see wages as any different from any other trade.

 

I don't know how to deal with the belief that resources are commonly owned prior to being claimed. It's impossible for everyone to have right of use, impossible to gain universal consent.

[arfink]

And here is a second one:

 

You and I are both farmers. I work one field, and you work another. Between us, 100% of the food for the local population is being grown. Normally this works very well, people come to us, we give them the extra food so they can eat too, and carry on our merry way.

 

Then one say the field you're working on doesn't make any food. Suddenly the field I work on has all the food. But I refuse to give you any, because my responsibility is only to give food to the people who don't have a field.

 

I think in that case you would have the right to make me reasonable, by use of force if I was particularly obstinate, as I am withholding something that is so critical to life that by simply being human, you have a right to it.

[Winchester]

OK, imagine this. You enter my house and take all my food. Then you decide you'd also like my wife or children to come with you. I and the friendly local police officer who I summon to my abode tell you not to, and you refuse to cooperate.

 

I think we're more than justified to use force on you to make you cooperate.

It sounds like I initiated violence. I thought you were going to create a situation in which violence had not been initiated. Self defense was never at issue.

[Winchester]

And here is a second one:

 

You and I are both farmers. I work one field, and you work another. Between us, 100% of the food for the local population is being grown. Normally this works very well, people come to us, we give them the extra food so they can eat too, and carry on our merry way.

 

Then one say the field you're working on doesn't make any food. Suddenly the field I work on has all the food. But I refuse to give you any, because my responsibility is only to give food to the people who don't have a field.

 

I think in that case you would have the right to make me reasonable, by use of force if I was particularly obstinate, as I am withholding something that is so critical to life that by simply being human, you have a right to it.

If I took only enough to sustain my life, would I not owe you restitution as soon as I could make it?

[arfink]

^^ Not necessarily.

Edited May 7, 2014 by arfink

[Winchester]

^^ Not necessarily.

 

So you argue that such rights exist independent of the declaration of others.

[4588686]

I don't see wages as any different from any other trade.

 

I don't know how to deal with the belief that resources are commonly owned prior to being claimed. It's impossible for everyone to have right of use, impossible to gain universal consent.

 

I wouldn't say that they are owned since property is a social institution.  Your defense seems consequentialist.  It would be impossible to create a system of property that attains universal consent.  That's absolutely true.  But then how is the institution justified?  That's no different than the imposition of the state system.  

[Winchester]

I wouldn't say that they are owned since property is a social institution.  Your defense seems consequentialist.  It would be impossible to create a system of property that attains universal consent.  That's absolutely true.  But then how is the institution justified?  That's no different than the imposition of the state system.  

States make ownership and use claims on property that's already in use. That's a difference. It also claims property not by the means of use, but by declaration. It tends to draw lines on a map and then ignore prior possession.

 

It's possible that you would only acknowledge possession and not acknowledge rights at all. This would mean there is no good or evil. That's a distinct possibility. I wouldn't see the point in discussing this with me, then. It's established that I don't believe in aggression so I'm no threat to you. You would be better off trying to convince someone like Vitamin. He'd kill you for crossing a border in order to cut someone's lawn, or for possessing a plant he didn't think you should have. Those are the people I'd be worried about. They're lunatics.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Winchester