https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TI-pm0m2o
How is he right?
How is he wrong?
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TI-pm0m2o
How is he right?
How is he wrong?
The Principle of Non-aggression lol
lol The Principle of Non-aggression
First problem: as he introduces the NAP, he equates what some societies teach their children about interaction amongst friends with interaction amongst enemies as well. Kids are NOT taught that violence is wrong; they're taught violence is wrong when conducted in certain ways. Two different things.
It's ironic that he says governments are wrong when they use aggression to enforce norms, yet he doesn't address how kids, even in his NAP Utopia, are taught that aggression is the way to enforce norms. In that situation, the aggression is by the parents.
He says "when you don't want to pay for an evil war, you get arrested." Here his argument solidly deviates from reason and embeds itself in the warm embrace of emotion.
After he says that "using violence to get what we want is the foundation of the society we live in" it turns off the rails. I can't go much further. Violence isn't the foundation of this society; it's a foundation of all societies.
Now the metaphor of how this is Ptolemaic geocentrism. I'm done.
I don't like Molyneux.
Jesus Christ, does he ever get to the point?
Why is being nice so great all of the sudden? All civilizations are based on cruelty. You're herding naked apes, not sheep. If you're one of the indigenous people of paqua new guinea, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't get beaten by police, instead if you're lucky enough not to be eaten by your fellow man, you're in perpetual clan wars and when you get a bad tooth the best you can hope for is someone who has good aim with a stone. People are fucking savage. Yes it would be great if everyone was nice, but everyone is not nice. We're only a couple generations out of kings and slaves. It takes time. It's going ok. If you want to help out, help out with something useful. The last thing we need is more theatralical nonsense on youtube.
I thought he was pretty persuasive. He used a lot of stuff that I've used to make points but came to the opposite conclusion.
I think he's wrong because when you swap assumptions and simplify a system everything may work easier, the trick is swapping in the correct assumptions.
You can never have a society that follows the principle of non-aggression because societies must address conflict in some fashion, and violence will always exist as the most decisive method for resolution. If anyone were to choose it, everyone must choose it.
He thinks violence is a necessary method for the continuation of states, where I see states as a necessary mechanism for handling violence.
Violence underlies everything. Offensive violence has a higher cost in free markets than it does for states, so there's less of it in free markets than in states.
I understand the logic but history has innumerable examples of when theory meets reality and it's discovered that theory got step 1 right and missed on everything afterward.
So it means nothing to me that a proper free market society will price out violence because it means nothing.
Is it violence to force another to submit to your demands? Sell me your business for x, or I will use all my resources to out compete and crush you.
States are subject to costs and benefits just like anything else.
Yeah. Implicit violence. If they refused and you pressed, the end game will be violence in some form or fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
No they aren't. Economies are an aspect of states, but states do not necessarily need healthy economies.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
See: Syria.
Everything is subject to costs and benefits. Most of the time, costs and benefits aren't explicitly in dollar signs. Economists try to think of this stuff in terms of dollars, though, since it allows for some level of quantification.
Syria is a marvelous example, but for different reasons than one would expect. War is often more beneficial than costly to a state, and peace is often more costly than beneficial. Right now, the Syrian government's benefit from war is astronomical. Peace would just find them losing their heads. While this type of thing would exist in a free market of security, it would likely be more subdued since costs and benefits would likely revolve more around economic power than political power.
im principly banging ur mom u bunch of aspie fuks