NationStates Jolt Archive

When is it justified for people to wage war against the existing governing authority? Why?

NSG has a disproportionate share of political radicals of one variety or another. A good portion of us have probably fantasized about/hoped for/actively plotted revolution... and even most of those of us who haven't probably identify with political movements that in the past have advocated and implemented political revolutions, and/or with countries whose independence was secured by them.

But the question of revolution is not as clear-cut as some of us (myself included) might like it to be. It's often been argued, and fairly convincingly, that to have a society with a minimum of security and order--both of which, in the end, prerequisites of freedom--the citizenry must accept rules set and judgment carried out by a common authority. Revolution, of course, can be seen as the ultimate rejection of such a common authority: it is to say that not only do we get to be judge in our own case, but we get to overthrow the current would-be judges and institute the ones we want in their place.

So: when is it acceptable? Whenever people feel like it? When the government fails to protect property rights? When it is undemocratic? When it has murderous and arbitrary policies towards its own citizens? When it engages in unjust policies abroad? Never?

Poll coming.

When there is no way for people to legally obtain what they want, revolution is the only answer. That's why democracy is a good idea, people are allowed to change most things without killing anyone. It doesn't matter what the political ideology is, as long as the citizens are getting what they want, but there are some ideologies that tend to keep the things people want away from them.

When is it justified for people to wage war against the existing governing authority? Why?

NSG has a disproportionate share of political radicals of one variety or another. A good portion of us have probably fantasized about/hoped for/actively plotted revolution... and even most of those of us who haven't probably identify with political movements that in the past have advocated and implemented political revolutions, and/or with countries whose independence was secured by them.

But the question of revolution is not as clear-cut as some of us (myself included) might like it to be. It's often been argued, and fairly convincingly, that to have a society with a minimum of security and order--both of which, in the end, prerequisites of freedom--the citizenry must accept rules set and judgment carried out by a common authority. Revolution, of course, can be seen as the ultimate rejection of such a common authority: it is to say that not only do we get to be judge in our own case, but we get to overthrow the current would-be judges and institute the ones we want in their place.

So: when is it acceptable? Whenever people feel like it? When the government fails to protect property rights? When it is undemocratic? When it has murderous and arbitrary policies towards its own citizens? When it engages in unjust policies abroad? Never?

Poll coming.

When the government violates the fundamental rights of the people. Revolution must ensue.

Whenever I get bored.

when the populace starts listening to Slipknot or whatever the kids are into these days

maybe even when the majority want to have a new government

When the government is seriously violating human rights (torture, violent repression etc), there is no other (more democratic) option, when there is popular support and when it can be assumed that the lives of the people will improve after the revolution (not replacing one dictator with another for instance).

Whenever I get bored.

That explains alot.

When the government violates the fundamental rights of the people.

I'm starting to realize that that was a bad poll option... what are the "fundamental rights of the people"?

I was thinking vaguely about "life, liberty, and estate" and all that--not in the absolutist form some libertarians would like to carry them to, and not in the broad senses that might lead instead to the "democratic" condition, but just the general requirement that the government isn't trampling roughshod over people.

When there is no way for people to legally obtain what they want, revolution is the only answer. That's why democracy is a good idea, people are allowed to change most things without killing anyone. It doesn't matter what the political ideology is, as long as the citizens are getting what they want, but there are some ideologies that tend to keep the things people want away from them.

That's overstating it on two counts. First, there is no legitemate right of revolution if, for instance, the people want to lynch black people and the government puts its troops between the would-be lynchers and the would-be lynchies. Want is therefore too strong a term a term. A better way to put it is when there is no way for the people to legally obtain, with certain provisions (to be discussed below), that which no government has the right to deny, then revolution is legitemate.

Secondly, you're too quick to jump to revolution being the only answer: Russians couldn't legally obtain albums of the Beatles during the Communist era, but they did anyway without resorting to revolution by employing a black market. So to say that "they cannot legally obtain what they want" is the sole criterion for whether a revolution is in order goes too far. Better instead to say that it is legitemate when it is the best option or the option most likely to result in favorable change of all possible options.

Not trying to jump down your throat here; I thought it was a good first effort. But I thought you went a bit overboard on your argument and allowed a lot more leeway for legitemacy to revolution than is really necessary.

I'm starting to realize that that was a bad poll option... what are the "fundamental rights of the people"?

I was thinking vaguely about "life, liberty, and estate" and all that--not in the absolutist form some libertarians would like to carry them to, and not in the broad senses that might lead instead to the "democratic" condition, but just the general requirement that the government isn't trampling roughshod over people.

Revolution, in that aspect, should only ensue if the right of free speech, liberty, to eat, to be respected, right to privacy, freedom of worship, to live where pleased and to own what´s rightfully yours. Those, to me, are the fundamental rights of a nation.

Okay. My own answer.

I think governmental authority can only be justified when it arises through rather than against the freedom of the people. Without that condition, it is simply the imposition of power by some against others. It does not represent any genuinely common authority, but simply exclusive rule through raw force--chaos institutionalized.

Thus, it is always legitimate to revolt against an undemocratic government, because such a government cannot be a legitimate source of political obligation in the first place. Its laws are enslaving, their enforcement aggression, and the people are entitled to overthrow such a government in self-defense. Indeed, they have an obligation to do so. We have a moral duty to respect the freedom of others, and the only way such universal respect is possible is within the framework of democratic self-governance.

However, within reasonably democratic societies, any right to revolution is severely curbed. Again, we are required to respect the freedom of others--however much we oppose the results of collective decision-making, we are not entitled to make ourselves dictators, even if we think the result will ultimately be greater freedom for all. That said, we are not required to comply with a system that, formally democratic or not, makes a mockery of democracy's founding principles--say, by effectively denying minorities political freedom (or more extreme manifestations.)

Within a reasonably democratic society, the justifiable case most likely to arise is a society that, however internally democratic, behaves in an egregiously undemocratic way toward the rest of the world... one that has awful consequences for human freedom and welfare. In that case, I think, revolutionary action in solidarity has a good moral case for it, subject, of course, to the usual considerations of efficiency and proportionality.

Revolution, in that aspect, should only ensue if the right of free speech,

Insofar as the right to free speech is essential to democratic governance, I agree.

liberty,

What do you mean by this? Protection from arbitrary imprisonment?

to eat,

Within the framework of the property system, or not? If the existing economic structure results in me starving, am I entitled to attempt to overthrow it?

to own what´s rightfully yours.

Who decides "what's rightfully yours"?

Revolution and the formation of the State are the inevitable consequences of a class relation in society which is irreconcilable. In short revolution happens when the interests of one group are completely at odds with the interests of the others, this always happens when one group has political power and the other does not.

Insofar as the right to free speech is essential to democratic governance, I agree.



What do you mean by this? Protection from arbitrary imprisonment?



Within the framework of the property system, or not? If the existing economic structure results in me starving, am I entitled to attempt to overthrow it?



Who decides "what's rightfully yours"?

Yes, I mean that a citizen has the right to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment.

Within the framework of property system, yes. If the system provokes that the population starves, heck yeah, there should be revolution.

Rightfully yours?, perhaps I overreached there, sorry. Only the system, if you trust it, can tell you what´s rightfully yours. I don´t think an ordinary citizen can, in as much as what encompasses the law, impartially tell others what´s rightfully his.

If there's pointless bloodshed coming from the top down, there should be revolution from the ground up. That simple.

Revolution is never justified. Unless, of course, your revolution succeeds.

It's often been argued, and fairly convincingly, that to have a society with a minimum of security and order--both of which, in the end, prerequisites of freedom--the citizenry must accept rules set and judgment carried out by a common authority.

Security is not a prerequisite of freedom, nor even a requirement. Indeed, security is the opposite of the freedom. The role of government should be to balance the need for security with the desire for freedom. (Note that I said should be.)

Soheran, I own what I produce through my own labor. You can quite easily distinguish what is 'rightfully yours' by having a simple look at reality, it isn't that hard.

Revolution is never justified. Unless, of course, your revolution succeeds.



Security is not a prerequisite of freedom, nor even a requirement. Indeed, security is the opposite of the freedom. The role of government should be to balance the need for security with the desire for freedom. (Note that I said should be.)

Ahhh freedom, as a great man once said: In need, freedom is latent.

Security is not a prerequisite of freedom, nor even a requirement.

Yes, it is. You cannot be meaningfully free if you are always concerned with guaranteeing your own personal safety--if you are continually vulnerable to the depredations of others who care nothing for your freedom or your rights.

Soheran, I own what I produce through my own labor.

You don't produce anything just with your own labor.

You can quite easily distinguish what is 'rightfully yours' by having a simple look at reality, it isn't that hard.

Explain.

Soheran, I own what I produce through my own labor. You can quite easily distinguish what is 'rightfully yours' by having a simple look at reality, it isn't that hard.

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm?

Either that, or (more likely), he's referencing the Marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation as depriving the workers of the full product of their labor.

You don't produce anything just with your own labor.
Exactly my point, and in this case 'my labor' is a collective term of wage-labor and wage-laborers in general. Yes other workers produce the tools and means of production in which I use to produce, a worker produced the cash register I use for example. That is why labor and self-determination in labor is inadequate when put on an individual basis, because of the interdependence of production (in modern society) labor can only be thought of in collective terms.

Explain.
Well it isn't overly complicated, despite the attempts of many to disguise the truth that workers produce everything in society, so everything in society belongs to them.

Well it isn't overly complicated, despite the attempts of many to disguise the truth that workers produce everything in society, so everything in society belongs to them.

What about the elderly? The very young? The disabled? Do they have anything by right, even though they don't produce?

What about the elderly? The very young? The disabled? Do they have anything by right, even though they don't produce?
He's a troll, Jesus Christ, man.

When they no longer let me eat cake.

He's a troll, Jesus Christ, man.

I don't think he is.

And if I'm wrong... well, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I'm willing to engage in some useless labor for the sake of that principle.

What about the elderly? The very young? The disabled? Do they have anything by right, even though they don't produce?

Well you didn't read the first part of my post, your thinking of wage-labor and society in individual terms as I said before, and that's where you err. The unemployed may have worked at some period, but moreover the unemployed are still workers, they just exist in the reserve pool of unemployed which exist to exert pressure on organized labor and create illusions of damage and feelings on enmity against them, society will blame 'those dole bludgers!' etc.

Disabled, elderly and young children are much the same, a reserve pool, in terms of unemployed many may be psychically able to work yet are stopped through lack of education and social structure generally.

Your thinking in terms of what 'an individual' is entitled to, and indeed the free development and freedom of an individual is impossible under wage-labor as the individual receives only a small portion of their labor value.

He's a troll, Jesus Christ, man.

Good to see that's your only response.

Yes, it is. You cannot be meaningfully free if you are always concerned with guaranteeing your own personal safety--if you are continually vulnerable to the depredations of others who care nothing for your freedom or your rights.

Respectfully, you're wrong. Any action that increases security necessarily (and by definition) reduces freedom. The scale running from freedom to security is risk. To reduce risk and provide a measure of security in some area, a freedom must be taken away in that area. I agree that 100% freedom/0% security would be as intolerable as 100% security/0% freedom, which is why we have a government, police force, army, etc. But to say you need one to have the other is untrue at best, misleading at worst.

"Meaningfully free" is a nonsense term because "meaning" is highly subjective. The security provided by wiretaps reduces (without necessarily taking away) your ability to speak freely on the telephone. Is that meaningful to you? Perhaps, but that old lady down the street never talks on the phone so she doesn't care.

Respectfully, you're wrong. Any action that increases security necessarily (and by definition) reduces freedom. The scale running from freedom to security is risk. To reduce risk and provide a measure of security in some area, a freedom must be taken away in that area. I agree that 100% freedom/0% security would be as intolerable as 100% security/0% freedom, which is why we have a government, police force, army, etc. But to say you need one to have the other is untrue at best, misleading at worst.

"Meaningfully free" is a nonsense term because "meaning" is highly subjective. The security provided by wiretaps reduces (without necessarily taking away) your ability to speak freely on the telephone. Is that meaningful to you? Perhaps, but that old lady down the street never talks on the phone so she doesn't care.


Freedom is by definition a release from dependence on others, whether this dependence maybe direct or indirect. Simply it's a group which grants themselves a monopoly on something the person/people 'need', this maybe security or in case of capitalism it's a monopoly over survival as they control food production as well as many other products under the control of monopolistic entities.

Think of it like this, if a stream existed in a town and everyone drank from that stream according to their need, it would be a communal product. If a group of people decided to set up an armed guard at the stream, it is instantly commodified and thus the rest of the town is dependent on that one group now for that product or they will die of thirst.

Freedom in that context is freedom from dependence and the only solution is a freedom from others controlling the necessary products of society. Instead the individual and the community should control such products.

People talk about socialism as if it's a trade off between the individual and the collective, this is false dichotomy as only socialized relations can ensure the full rights of the individual.

Your thinking in terms of what 'an individual' is entitled to, and indeed the free development and freedom of an individual is impossible under wage-labor as the individual receives only a small portion of their labor value.


That's because that the rest of the money goes to supporting the rest of the company-- performing maintanence of all sorts, from paying management, to buying equipment, to paying the factory electric bill, thuswise ensuring that the worker can keep working. Behind every worker exists an entire organization that allows them to work, and money must be taken to support it, otherwise the system crashes. You can see this in the Great Depression. The workers back then may have been hard working, but since many of the corporations had gone under or severely shrunk in size and operations, the workers were incapable of getting a job to work at all.

<snip>
None of what I said had anything to do with socialism, and I don't see socialism as a freedom/security issue.

Carrying your definition further though... You said, "Freedom is by definition a release from dependence on others, whether this dependence maybe direct or indirect." Security is that dependence.

Any action that increases security necessarily (and by definition) reduces freedom.

In that it represents a restriction on my absolute free action, yes. But it may also increase freedom in substantive terms. The elimination of my freedom to make you a slave makes society freer in terms of material reality.

"Meaningfully free" is a nonsense term because "meaning" is highly subjective.

Then the right answer cannot be that security is necessarily in conflict with freedom... doesn't it depend on how I rank my freedom? Maybe my freedom to live without fear of attack is more important to me than my freedom to not be subject to the authority of the police.

Actually, I shouldn't disparage your point. It's a very important one, when its full implications are understood. A "free society" cannot be defined in terms of results, because which "results" represent true freedom is always subjective. It must be defined in terms of procedures--in terms of the capacity for the people within society to rule themselves, to decide for their own which rules they will abide by and which values to elevate over others.

Of course, this only proves my overall point, for without security and order, collective self-rule is impossible. Individuals are perfectly free to violate the freedom of others... and indeed, to the extent that no common rules have been agreed upon, they must necessarily do so.

Respectfully, you're wrong. Any action that increases security necessarily (and by definition) reduces freedom. The scale running from freedom to security is risk. To reduce risk and provide a measure of security in some area, a freedom must be taken away in that area. I agree that 100% freedom/0% security would be as intolerable as 100% security/0% freedom, which is why we have a government, police force, army, etc. But to say you need one to have the other is untrue at best, misleading at worst.

"Meaningfully free" is a nonsense term because "meaning" is highly subjective. The security provided by wiretaps reduces (without necessarily taking away) your ability to speak freely on the telephone. Is that meaningful to you? Perhaps, but that old lady down the street never talks on the phone so she doesn't care.

You're question-begging: why is this 100% freedom, provided this axis exists, intolerable? It's because we in some sense are reduced in the choices we can effectively make. I can't reasonably expect to make anything when I know that 5 other men can gang up and take what I have. I can't reasonably claim to own anything when I know that I can be stabbed in my sleep at the whim of another so that he can make his own stake at it. I cannot claim, in simplest terms, to be in any state other than war with the rest of mankind if I have no security. Now I don't know about you, but war =/= a state of absolute freedom in my estimation. It is in fact the absolute deprivation of freedom, meaning the absolute deprivation of making any meaningful choice because my alternative option in most cases is deprivation of that which is mine or death.

Now granted, that was a bad thumbnail of Hobbes, but the point remains: you are pitting freedom against security because you've defined it as such, and that is a bad definition, because clearly absolute lack of security is not only intolerable, it isn't very free as well. But to say this suggests a better definition of freedom: freedom means the ability to choose between sets of viable options without outside coercion. If there's outside coercion, there's no freedom, which is what you seem, however ham-handedly, to be trying to get at with the security vs. freedom axis. Where there is no ability to choose otherwise, there is also no freedom. But it's possible when laid out like this to suggest a security that does not coerce and provides alternative options in its context. As such, security may, at least theoretically, be compatible with freedom.

That's because that the rest of the money goes to supporting the rest of the company-- performing maintanence of all sorts, from paying management, to buying equipment, to paying the factory electric bill, thuswise ensuring that the worker can keep working. Behind every worker exists an entire organization that allows them to work, and money must be taken to support it, otherwise the system crashes. You can see this in the Great Depression. The workers back then may have been hard working, but since many of the corporations had gone under or severely shrunk in size and operations, the workers were incapable of getting a job to work at all.
That is a false assumption when you consider CEO's earning near 100x more than their workers.

Also, you fail to understand the concept of overproduction, yes indeed this surplus value is used by the owners to invest in and expand their ventures, but the fact is that such overproduction is destructive and ultimately serves to expand such ventures for the point of nothing.

Indeed the argument for socialism rests in a thoroughly individualistic concept, that the person and people more generally (although advocation of such always rests on the material interest of the individual) have a right to the full product of their labor. Only a society based upon that model of consumption as a necessary program will provide best for the people.

In practice, Revolution seems to be a great way of handing government to a dictator.

"Good people doing bad things create a precedent for bad people to do bad things" is kinda how I see it.
The means should look just like the ends. Violent means lead to violent ends, regardless of the intention.

That is a false assumption when you consider CEO's earning near 100x more than their workers.


Firstly, I never said I agreed with the amount the CEO got paid, just that he deserved extra for building and maintaining the system the allows the worker to work and be fed. I do believe that the insane salaries of some CEOs borders on criminal.

Also, you fail to understand the concept of overproduction, yes indeed this surplus value is used by the owners to invest in and expand their ventures, but the fact is that such overproduction is destructive and ultimately serves to expand such ventures for the point of nothing.


I didn't talk about overproduction. I talked about the costs required to maintain the system to keep the worker working. What good is a factory worker if the factory can't pay it's electricty bills?

Indeed the argument for socialism rests in a thoroughly individualistic concept, that the person and people more generally (although advocation of such always rests on the material interest of the individual) have a right to the full product of their labor. Only a society based upon that model of consumption as a necessary program will provide best for the people.

Because the worker can only work through the efforts of the company. Can a construction worker build a house if he doesn't have any concrete? No, the company purchases all his supplies, gives him the design plans, organizes his fellow workers so that he can get his job done and build the house. When you look at it, the individual worker doesn't actually contribute as much as you think he does.

In practice, Revolution seems to be a great way of handing government to a dictator.

Always?

Sure, the record of revolutions isn't always pretty... but we have plenty of examples of people overthrowing governments that have had positive consequences.

Violent means lead to violent ends, regardless of the intention.

"Violence" isn't strictly necessary in a revolution. And are you really an absolute pacifist?

Perhaps the difference is indeed in our definitions. I define absolute freedom as absolute freedom of action or inaction. The fact that someone may walk up and shoot me does not have any bearing on my freedom of action to walk down the street.

I'll agree with you and Soheran that having absolutely no security would restrict your ability to enjoy the free action you'd have, but that's not what I was arguing. (I said as much already.)

You're question-begging: why is this 100% freedom, provided this axis exists, intolerable? It's because we in some sense are reduced in the choices we can effectively make. I can't reasonably expect to make anything when I know that 5 other men can gang up and take what I have. I can't reasonably claim to own anything when I know that I can be stabbed in my sleep at the whim of another so that he can make his own stake at it. I cannot claim, in simplest terms, to be in any state other than war with the rest of mankind if I have no security. Now I don't know about you, but war =/= a state of absolute freedom in my estimation. It is in fact the absolute deprivation of freedom, meaning the absolute deprivation of making any meaningful choice because my alternative option in most cases is deprivation of that which is mine or death.

Now granted, that was a bad thumbnail of Hobbes, but the point remains: you are pitting freedom against security because you've defined it as such, and that is a bad definition, because clearly absolute lack of security is not only intolerable, it isn't very free as well. But to say this suggests a better definition of freedom: freedom means the ability to choose between sets of viable options without outside coercion. If there's outside coercion, there's no freedom, which is what you seem, however ham-handedly, to be trying to get at with the security vs. freedom axis. Where there is no ability to choose otherwise, there is also no freedom. But it's possible when laid out like this to suggest a security that does not coerce and provides alternative options in its context. As such, security may, at least theoretically, be compatible with freedom.

Perhaps the difference is indeed in our definitions. I define absolute freedom as absolute freedom of action or inaction. The fact that someone may walk up and shoot me does not have any bearing on my freedom of action to walk down the street.

As Xenophobialand said, this is a very poor definition of freedom. Indeed, under this definition your own point about security suffers. You always have "absolute freedom of action or inaction" in that sense insofar as you retain free will. Unless the government uses mind control, it doesn't restrict that freedom either.

I don't disagree with what you said, because as I told Xenophobialand, I think the problem was with my arguing absolute freedom (free action) vice subjective freedom. (In my defense, subjective freedom isn't nearly as quantifiable as free action and security action.)

However, I still maintain that a measure that increases security decreases absolute freedom (action and/or choice) and vice versa.


In that it represents a restriction on my absolute free action, yes. But it may also increase freedom in substantive terms. The elimination of my freedom to make you a slave makes society freer in terms of material reality.



Then the right answer cannot be that security is necessarily in conflict with freedom... doesn't it depend on how I rank my freedom? Maybe my freedom to live without fear of attack is more important to me than my freedom to not be subject to the authority of the police.

Actually, I shouldn't disparage your point. It's a very important one, when its full implications are understood. A "free society" cannot be defined in terms of results, because which "results" represent true freedom is always subjective. It must be defined in terms of procedures--in terms of the capacity for the people within society to rule themselves, to decide for their own which rules they will abide by and which values to elevate over others.

Of course, this only proves my overall point, for without security and order, collective self-rule is impossible. Individuals are perfectly free to violate the freedom of others... and indeed, to the extent that no common rules have been agreed upon, they must necessarily do so.

Firstly, I never said I agreed with the amount the CEO got paid, just that he deserved extra for building and maintaining the system the allows the worker to work and be fed. I do believe that the insane salaries of some CEOs borders on criminal.


I didn't talk about overproduction. I talked about the costs required to maintain the system to keep the worker working. What good is a factory worker if the factory can't pay it's electricty bills?


Because the worker can only work through the efforts of the company. Can a construction worker build a house if he doesn't have any concrete? No, the company purchases all his supplies, gives him the design plans, organizes his fellow workers so that he can get his job done and build the house. When you look at it, the individual worker doesn't actually contribute as much as you think he does.

And who produces the concrete, who works the electricity power station, who produces the bricks the house builder uses? Other workers of course. You talk about using extract surplus to improve the tools of production which the workers use, but inevitably the value (money) the bourgeois uses is simply the capitalist paying other workers to do other things, he gives a wage (commission or salary) to other workers to improve the infrastructure, expand etc.

My point is, if you took the parasitic role of the individual capitalist out of society tomorrow, society would function much better because they essentially are blocks in the drain so to speak.

Yes, the individual worker contributes relatively little in objective analysis, but that all the more reinforces the fact that labor can only be truly understood in collective interdependent terms.

However, I still maintain that a measure that increases security decreases absolute freedom (action and/or choice) and vice versa.

How does it decrease absolute freedom?

As Xenophobialand said, this is a very poor definition of freedom. Indeed, under this definition your own point about security suffers. You always have "absolute freedom of action or inaction" in that sense insofar as you retain free will. Unless the government uses mind control, it doesn't restrict that freedom either.

I think you rather missed the point.

How does it decrease absolute freedom?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? :rolleyes: Because it's not a security measure unless it either stops you from doing something or provides punishment for doing it. Think of the metal detector at the airport for a quick example. It's a security action that reduces your ability to bring a gun or knife onto the aircraft. Simple, to the point. One restricts the other.

Belaboring of the point and nitpicking the semantics doesn't make my argument less valid.

I refuse to recognize any government as legitimate. All should be overthrown. However, I abhor revolution because too often revolutions degenerate into mindless, nihilistic orgies of senseless violence, and too often result in dictatorship. That being said, I support the right of anyone to secede, at any time, in any place, for whatever reason.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? :rolleyes:

No. I'm trying to get you to see the point you accuse me of missing.

Because it's not a security measure unless it either stops you from doing something or provides punishment for doing it.

You break a law. The government kills you.

You do something some random person finds offensive. He kills you.

What's the difference?

Think of the metal detector at the airport for a quick example. It's a security action that reduces your ability to bring a gun or knife onto the aircraft.

The nearby private gang sets up a metal detector to help ensure that non-gang members don't carry weapons. What's the difference?

Belaboring of the point and nitpicking the semantics doesn't make my argument less valid.

When you're using a useless definition that you don't even apply consistently? Yes, it does. ;)

And who produces the concrete, who works the electricity power station, who produces the bricks the house builder uses? Other workers of course. You talk about using extract surplus to improve the tools of production which the workers use, but inevitably the value (money) the bourgeois uses is simply the capitalist paying other workers to do other things, he gives a wage (commission or salary) to other workers to improve the infrastructure, expand etc.

My point is, if you took the parasitic role of the individual capitalist out of society tomorrow, society would function much better because they essentially are blocks in the drain so to speak.

Yes, the individual worker contributes relatively little in objective analysis, but that all the more reinforces the fact that labor can only be truly understood in collective interdependent terms.

The other workers may produce it and transport it, but how? Who organizes them? Capitalism, especially on an international scale, is a huge organization that is powered by brainpower, which the worker doesn't provide. Suppose the construction builder's concrete is manufactured (by workers!) in China. So, how's it going to get transported over here? By ship, piloted of course, by other workers. But how does the ship, or even the concrete manufacturers even know how to provide the construction worker. The construction worker must plan out how much concrete he needs, contact the concrete manufacturer, make orders and pay the necessary money, then contact the ship and pay them, sychronize his order to ensure his concrete is on the dock when it gets shipped over here, and finally have someone pick it up for him before he is ready to do work. Now, the question is, does the construction worker have either the intelligence, education, or the money to fund such a venture? Probably not. He's just a construction worker, he's been trained to construct things. This is where the company steps in. It performs all these tasks for him so that he can do his job, constructing, and not worry about anything else. If he didn't have the company in place to support him and his jobs, odds are he would probably fail. The system you have described as a parasite is actually necessary-- otherwise the workers can't work.

Always?

Sure, the record of revolutions isn't always pretty... but we have plenty of examples of people overthrowing governments that have had positive consequences.

Give me your best two or three, then.

"Violence" isn't strictly necessary in a revolution.

If your definition of revolution includes "people power" or moral persuasion of the rulers, then it's a fairly useless definition.

Overthrowing a government which doesn't use force to protect itself (ie, non-violent "revolution") hardly seems what we're talking about. AND it almost always involves a powerful ally who IS prepared to use force, eg the military.

And are you really an absolute pacifist?

I guess not. But every debate needs some bleeding-heart in it, insisting that good things happen from good motives, and all glory is not due to whatever gangster has grabbed the wheel.

No. I'm trying to get you to see the point you accuse me of missing.
Look harder. I've made it three or four times already.
You break a law. The government kills you.

You do something some random person finds offensive. He kills you.

What's the difference?
None.
The nearby private gang sets up a metal detector to help ensure that non-gang members don't carry weapons. What's the difference?
None. Security = security.
When you're using a useless definition that you don't even apply consistently? Yes, it does. ;)
You saying I'm inconsistent doesn't mean I actually am. ;) I've applied my definition absolutely consistently. Twisting it into something I didn't say and then arguing that isn't my inconsistency. It's your strawman. ;)

I refuse to recognize any government as legitimate.

Yay! An anarchist. We haven't had one of those in a while!

*fires up the barbeque and checks the tomato sauce*

All should be overthrown. However, I abhor revolution because too often revolutions degenerate into mindless, nihilistic orgies of senseless violence, and too often result in dictatorship. That being said, I support the right of anyone to secede, at any time, in any place, for whatever reason.

To secede requires a territory, though? So this right is not available to those who own nothing ...

Give me your best two or three, then.

Look at the past three or four decades and you'll find a lot more than two or three. The ones that overthrew dictators in Eastern Europe? Latin America? The Philippines? Indonesia?

If your definition of revolution includes "people power" or moral persuasion of the rulers, then it's a fairly useless definition.

"Moral persuasion", yes. "People power"? Why?

Overthrowing a government which doesn't use force to protect itself (ie, non-violent "revolution") hardly seems what we're talking about.

Nonsense. If you overthrow a government against its will, the fact that you do it without bloodshed just proves you did it well. Not that you didn't do it at all.

To secede requires a territory, though? So this right is not available to those who own nothing ...

Everyone owns something: Themself.

snip

Your 'conclusion' comes down the false assumption that capitalists have a meaningful role in society generally, and that workers cannot coordinate themselves effectively. Your elitist view of workers as the 'great unwashed' is refuted by the mere existance of unions which can organize in any extremely effective manner. Also your definition of 'worker' is false, a worker is anyone who works for a wage (salary, commission), a capitalist is someone who owns a means of production (ie the stream I mentioned).

None.

Then stopping the random person from killing you represents an increase in freedom for you, by your own reasoning. Government punishments restrict freedom, and there's no difference between government punishments and private punishments, so therefore private punishments restrict freedom (and getting rid of them increases freedom, at least in that respect.)

Of course, that directly contradicts your earlier statement.

Yay! An anarchist. We haven't had one of those in a while!

Actually... this thread was started by an anarchist.

I'm just an anarchist who delights in twisting liberal political theory to support his nasty anarchist ends. ;)

Your 'conclusion' comes down the false assumption that capitalists have a meaningful role in society generally, and that workers cannot coordinate themselves effectively. Your elitist view of workers as the 'great unwashed' is refuted by the mere existance of unions which can organize in any extremely effective manner. Also your definition of 'worker' is false, a worker is anyone who works for a wage (salary, commission), a capitalist is someone who owns a means of production (ie the stream I mentioned).

And your "conclusion" comes down to a false assumption that the worker can exist as his own island in the midst of society. If you think labor unions are an example of workers coordinating their efforts effectively, think again. The rioting of a bunch of factory workers is hardly comparable to coordinating a multi faceted enterprise across numerous national borders. Not to mention the union itself usually organizes the workers, not the workers by themselves. Workers pay dues to their union and the union organizes them. The workers rarely do this by themselves. And that's your definition of capitalist, then it's pretty much limited to landlords and property holders. CEOs work very hard for their position.

Then stopping the random person from killing you represents an increase in freedom for you, by your own reasoning. Government punishments restrict freedom, and there's no difference between government punishments and private punishments, so therefore private punishments restrict freedom (and getting rid of them increases freedom, at least in that respect.)

Of course, that directly contradicts your earlier statement.
Which one?

And your "conclusion" comes down to a false assumption that the worker can exist as his own island in the midst of society. If you think labor unions are an example of workers coordinating their efforts effectively, think again. The rioting of a bunch of factory workers is hardly comparable to coordinating a multi faceted enterprise across numerous national borders. Not to mention the union itself usually organizes the workers, not the workers by themselves. Workers pay dues to their union and the union organizes them. The workers rarely do this by themselves. And that's your definition of capitalist, then it's pretty much limited to landlords and property holders. CEOs work very hard for their position.

And who are the people who organize the workers in the union, other workers of course! Your arguments, which basically come down to inventing something that workers can't do for themselves, fail because you seem to come to the conclusion almost that workers are different species from capitalists, both are people are both are capable of the same.

Who builds everything? Workers.

Which one?

This one:

The fact that someone may walk up and shoot me does not have any bearing on my freedom of action to walk down the street.

When is it justified for people to wage war against the existing governing authority? Why?

I wonder how many people actually seek justification of violence/war against government, and how many people caught in the middle take up arms as mostly an act of self-defense. Against either the government (which seeks to "pacify" the rioting masses) or against the rioting masses (which seeks to root out "counterrevolutionaries" and such).

I'm not all that inclined to engage in violent revolution myself, officially because I don't wish to reduce myself by resorting to the tactics of my enemy, and secretly because I'm just a coward. But, if the stuff hits the fan and I'm caught between two factions hell bent on wiping each other out, I suppose I've got little other option than to pick the side I think closest to justice as I know it and keep my head down.

In the meantime, I'll work real hard at making sure that peaceful revolution can be accomplished through the parliamentary process.

EDIT: I suppose the closest poll option to the above is "When the government is murdering its own people," but I still prefer "other."

I propose a revolution. We privatise all residential property, to the person, people or family who live in that property right now.

We leave everything else unchanged. We hold elections at the scheduled date for our countries (or four years from now, for posters who aren't living in a democratic country.) We run our revolutionary party as candidates, but don't try to rig the election in any way.

This is a very limited form of revolution. We aren't re-writing laws or trying to change the structure of the economy. Simply redistributing property according to need.

How do you all think that would go ?

They don't contradict each other at all. The sentence you quoted, Soheran, states that we both have freedom of action if there is no security. He has the freedom to shoot me as I have the freedom to walk.

You're contending that his shooting me (if he thinks he's punishing me) is an act of security taking away my freedom to walk (which I will be too dead to do). Besides being a stretch, that removes the premise of the 0% security scenario. You don't get to cherry-pick those points that disagree with what you contend, take them out of context, and then say that my whole argument is contradictory. Sorry, pal. Logic doesn't work that way. You fail.

I wonder how many people actually seek justification of violence/war against government, and how many people caught in the middle take up arms as mostly an act of self-defense.

Very thoughtful post. Your spell-checker is set to En-US. Please adjust it. :)

Your spell-checker is set to En-US. Please adjust it. :)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the grammatical bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare their right to use whichever spell-checker they damn well please.

**retrieves musket and kicks a box of tea into the harbor**

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the grammatical bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare their right to use whichever spell-checker they damn well please.

**retrieves musket and kicks a box of tea into the harbor**

Oh, you're that kind of English-speaker. You do all right, considering.

*bows*

EDIT: If you object to being sigged, just say so and I'll take it out. That really had me rolling around!

Oh, you're that kind of English-speaker. You do all right, considering.

*bows*

My newly acquired BBC podcast addiction will have me mispronouncing "schedule" in no time.

In the meantime, I'll work real hard at making sure that peaceful revolution can be accomplished through the parliamentary process.

In the sense of "change" ... even rapid change, disruptive change ... I am in favour of revolution.

But I'm a coward, as you profess to be, and I'll speak on behalf of the cowardly masses: "give us a quiet life. Give us rules which we can believe in, and we'll live by those rules, and if we don't like them we'll try to persuade you otherwise. You have the gun, so let's do a deal. I won't try to grab the gun, and you don't shoot me."

I suppose the closest poll option to the above is "When the government is murdering its own people," but I still prefer "other."

I didn't choose that option, because "murder" is such an emotive word. It can describe acts of war, it can describe the death sentence. The strict definition is "unlawful killing." I suppose if the government is killing citizens in contravention of the laws which apply to citizens ... maybe. But how many murders justify a revolution? Two? Three? A hundred? Etc.

EDIT: Schedule is pronounced "Shed.yule" ... right?

I propose a revolution. We privatise all residential property, to the person, people or family who live in that property right now.

We leave everything else unchanged. We hold elections at the scheduled date for our countries (or four years from now, for posters who aren't living in a democratic country.) We run our revolutionary party as candidates, but don't try to rig the election in any way.

This is a very limited form of revolution. We aren't re-writing laws or trying to change the structure of the economy. Simply redistributing property according to need.

How do you all think that would go ?

Well, government-subsidized housing projects could be transferred to the tenants, but I don't like the idea of taking my apartment from my landlady for myself (even if she can be a <insert bad word> at times) because the landlord/lady has made a significant investment in any rental property. That would constitute seizure of the personal property of another person and would violate my own libertarian principles.

Well, government-subsidized housing projects could be transferred to the tenants, but I don't like the idea of taking my apartment from my landlady for myself (even if she can be a <insert bad word> at times) because the landlord/lady has made a significant investment in any rental property. That would constitute seizure of the personal property of another person and would violate my own libertarian principles.

You could gift the property back to the landlady if you felt that way.

Fact is, there are roughly as many homes as there are people or families/households. Even if someone owns a property, rents it out while renting some other place, they'd have a place to live. The place they were renting.

So you don't like my revolution. You can vote for the other guys when we hold elections. If we get elected, our next policy will be to provide homes for the homeless.

Difficult to say. On one hand, revolutions are (usually) not good things. Yes, the ends might be grand, nice, or good, but the means now...

I'd probably say that the right to have a revloution is whenever the people of a self-id'd nation decide that the current political situation is intollerable to the well-being of their future and said poltical situation is no longer responcive to the demands of that nation.

Whenever some guy is claiming they have the right to force you in one way or another. Or to put it more simply, whenever there is a government.

You're contending that his shooting me (if he thinks he's punishing me) is an act of security taking away my freedom to walk (which I will be too dead to do).

It doesn't have to be an act of security, just an act of freedom restriction. That's not a stretch at all.

Unless you want to draw a distinction between "killing for security" and "killing just because"... but unless you want to claim that a government that punishes you arbitrarily isn't restricting your freedom, either....

Besides being a stretch, that removes the premise of the 0% security scenario.

That's so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. You can't just pretend we're talking about a magical utopia where nobody harms anybody else.

Look, you can't wish away violence in a situation of social chaos. It's not going away just because you ask nicely. You deal with violence the way you deal with abuses of power in general: you make it go away.

Maybe in your world of pointless abstraction you can find some way to twist "freedom" and "security" to work the way you want them to, but in the real world, the restriction of freedom that eliminates the violence dominant in a circumstance of social chaos is what makes real freedom possible. In principle, you've made all the concessions necessary to see this. You're just being stubborn because you don't want to admit it.

If you prefer: by replacing the "security" of the random individual with the security of democratic self-governance, good governments make us more free. (But, of course, in concrete terms they also make us more secure. My point still stands.)

Just to qualify the way I voted: "takes people's stuff" means going beyond simple taxation, but towards nationalisation, confiscation and tax rates approaching 100%. If someone keeps poking me it's wrong and it's annoying but I can shrug it off. If someone starts punching me, I'm gonna have to do something about it.

In principle a superior option is to just leave, and I think that's what confuses my voting a little bit, not least because the options flow into each other.

Whenever some guy is claiming they have the right to force you in one way or another. Or to put it more simply, whenever there is a government.

Oh, no. ANother anarchist!

Anarchists are just people who see the power others have, won't resort to the means necessary to take their share of it, and wish for a system where they have their share of power. But no more, of course, they're happy to strike a balance with everyone else ... for now.

Oh, it's sweet and romantic. But wishing does not make it so.

You anarchists go one of three ways: (a)you take the power, and like it, and discover that you can use it more responsibly than those who won't take it, (b) you become pacifists or appeasers, resigned to not having your share of power, or (c) you make a joke of the matter, occasionally going on an entertaining but harmless bender of "fight the power!"

How do you all think that would go ?

It would probably cause substantial economic problems. All the present owners would object (loudly), and investors would be scared that you'd do the same to them next.

Not that I wouldn't support you... but care would be necessary.

Whenever some guy is claiming they have the right to force you in one way or another.

Really? Even if I'm being forced to not harm others? Can I attack the government for daring to prohibit murder?

Or to put it more simply, whenever there is a government.

That's much too simple. I suggest that if you are really concerned with preventing the sort of government you (perhaps quite rightfully) oppose, you should support a "government" of sorts that is capable of preventing it.

Even "anarcho"-capitalists must admit, in the end, that their objection is not to government as such so much as it is to government that takes what they decree to be theirs. They're fine with governance as long as it's carried out by hired mercenary gangs.

Anarchists of the libertarian socialist variety, for our part, have sometimes invested rhetorical effort in denying it, but ultimately we do advocate government of a particular sort. We just insist that it be self-government: government without governors.

Only 2 criteria.
1. If you have a chance of success.
2. If you think you can do better than the current system.

Only criteria 1 is holding me back at the moment. :)

Interesting topic... I go for "Other". I would have gone for murdering people but this is a vague definition, i.e.capital punishment? mass genocide? neglect of social services? It's too hazy

OTHER - When the government is imposed by an outside force, or when the government point blank refuses to accept it's responsibilities in providing a basic degree of security for the people (law and order, availability of the necessities of life and a basic social and material infrastructure). In times of war providing these things is often impossible, but it is when a government can provide them, and refuses to do so then it's mandate should be revoked.

In principle a superior option is to just leave, and I think that's what confuses my voting a little bit, not least because the options flow into each other.

They do, don't they... I think that's the nature of this particular question. (Or maybe just my own laziness.)

Anarchists are just people who see the power others have,

Indeed.

won't resort to the means necessary to take their share of it,

What do you mean here? Do you mean we don't ourselves want to rule within the framework of capitalism and the state? Then you're quite right: most of us are principled enough that we oppose exclusive power even when it's us who get it.

But if you mean we're not willing to actively seek and fight for an anarchist society, you're decidedly wrong.

and wish for a system where they have their share of power.

We, and everyone else.

You anarchists go one of three ways: (a)you take the power, and like it, and discover that you can use it more responsibly than those who won't take it,

Who is it who "won't take it"? Is this like some kind of capitalist "meritocracy" myth, where the people who rule now rule because they have ambition and initiative, and the poor and the oppressed are where they are because they're meek and passive?

No, inequality in power is structural--it has to do with how society is organized. Anarchism aims to replace the social structures that currently engender power inequity with social structures founded upon political and economic equality.

Really? Even if I'm being forced to not harm others? Can I attack the government for daring to prohibit murder?

The government may prohibit murder, but as with everything else, they cannot actually prevent it. One of the attitudes I am most irritated by is that which sees every human as a depraved killer, only kept in check by the noble agents of the law*. The vast majority of people simply don't kill others, and the law has nothing to do with this. For the minority that do, a much more effective method is to address the reasons. Economic inequality and problems related to this can be solved through communism or socialism. Crimes of passion are unpreventable, as they are generally not taken by humans who are thinking straight at the time. There, the most appropriate method is probably to treat these people like human beings, to recognise that we all mess up on occasion. Finally, one has sociopaths and the like. These are perhaps the most problematic, and the most effective method is probably to remove them from the community, and be willing, if necessary, to kill them in self defense.

In other words, the government is trying to do a good thing when it prohibits murder. However, it's prohibition is unnecessary, and humans can generally sort themselves out quite well enough. Therefore I feel it doesn't need attacking for such an action, but that it is not any reason to keep it, and other actions it takes are quite enough to call for it's destruction.

*For a start, if this is true, why do we give such power to the human agents of the law? Seems to be a potential problem there.

That's much too simple. I suggest that if you are really concerned with preventing the sort of government you (perhaps quite rightfully) oppose, you should support a "government" of sorts that is capable of preventing it.

Even "anarcho"-capitalists must admit, in the end, that their objection is not to government as such so much as it is to government that takes what they decree to be theirs. They're fine with governance as long as it's carried out by hired mercenary gangs.

Anarchists of the libertarian socialist variety, for our part, have sometimes invested rhetorical effort in denying it, but ultimately we do advocate government of a particular sort. We just insist that it be self-government: government without governors.

Well, to ignore the idea of 'anarcho'-capitalism for a moment.

I feel that one can be justified in calling a sufficiently libertarian socialism anarchy, because I feel that one can class a system as anarchist when there is no government. I see a self-regulated society as perfectly compatible with anarchism, the problem stems when one class of people claim themselves to be superior enough to be justified in ordering others around.

After all, if we take an optimistic view of humanity, then it is obvious that no government is necessary. If we take a pessimistic view, then it seems to me that we must also take a pessimistic view of the government, as it is made up of humans. Therefore if we assume that all humans are out to get others, the government must necessarily become abusive, and therefore should be avoided.

Oh, no. ANother anarchist!

Anarchists are just people who see the power others have, won't resort to the means necessary to take their share of it, and wish for a system where they have their share of power. But no more, of course, they're happy to strike a balance with everyone else ... for now.

Oh, it's sweet and romantic. But wishing does not make it so.

You anarchists go one of three ways: (a)you take the power, and like it, and discover that you can use it more responsibly than those who won't take it, (b) you become pacifists or appeasers, resigned to not having your share of power, or (c) you make a joke of the matter, occasionally going on an entertaining but harmless bender of "fight the power!"

I feel that no-one is justified wielding power, because no human is perfect. Power over other humans is an immensely corrupting thing, open to horrendous abuse. Therefore, I reject the right of any, even myself, to possess it. I don't feel I'd be any better in government than the current persons, that I would avoid falling into the traps of oppression and corruption. So I don't say "You aren't doing it right, let me do it". I say "You aren't doing it right, but no-one could do it right, so no-one can do it". The difference is important.

And pacifists can have tremendous power. It in no way refers to being passive or unwilling to take action, simply to the belief that violence is not a justifiable means to achieve one's ends. Again, the difference is important.

It would probably cause substantial economic problems. All the present owners would object (loudly), and investors would be scared that you'd do the same to them next.

Not that I wouldn't support you... but care would be necessary.

This was your point all along, wasn't it?

Revolution is justified in fucked-up foreign places which really need to get with the 21st century ... but we start talking revolution where YOU or I live, and it's "oh, I'd support that but we have to be careful."

Soheran, the careful revolutionary. Hah!

For that matter, Soheran, the anarchist who wants a law against publishing Holocaust denial ... because, oh I dunno, it might hurt somebody's feelings?

Mate, if it comes to a revolution ... I'm carrying my own ammo. If I feel the need to shoot someone, arguing with you would waste FAR too much time.

I think I would revolt under some circumstances, take up arms against the government and try to overthrow it, but I feel compelled to say NEVER on principle. Not for any principle, since this is a major decision which might well lead to my death, might well lead to reprisals against those I love or against random strangers. As well as my death!

This is not a decision to be made lightly, and not one I will future-guess myself on until that situation arises. My courage does not need screwing to the sticking-point, it will be there when I need it, or not be there at all.

"I would fight and die for x principle" is empty bluster. We don't know what we would die in the ditch for, until we are in the ditch and we see the enemy, gun levelled at us. THEN we must decide if our principle is worth dying for. Or if our life is worth more to us than the principle we voted for in an internet poll.

I call for more votes for the only option I took, "Never." It is never justified by some form of words, some abstract principle, to take power. It is always contingent, it is in every case a complex mixture of principles and the sheer self-interest of those who take power and those they represent. We cannot judge until we are there ourselves. Revolution is NEVER justified in advance, on a principle. But it's very easy to justify in retrospect.

"Revolutionaries" is a charming, old-fashioned word for "terrorists." Those who want twenty bucks worth of political influence for ten cents worth of political effort. And mistake the value of their own life.

This was your point all along, wasn't it?

Revolution is justified in fucked-up foreign places which really need to get with the 21st century ... but we start talking revolution where YOU or I live, and it's "oh, I'd support that but we have to be careful."

Soheran, the careful revolutionary. Hah!

For that matter, Soheran, the anarchist who wants a law against publishing Holocaust denial ... because, oh I dunno, it might hurt somebody's feelings?

Mate, if it comes to a revolution ... I'm carrying my own ammo. If I feel the need to shoot someone, arguing with you would waste FAR too much time.

Soheran, as far as I recall, is a Libertarian Socialist, but not an Anarchist. See this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13551802&postcount=13).

Soheran, as far as I recall, is a Libertarian Socialist, but not an Anarchist. See this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13551802&postcount=13).

Isn't libertarian socialism a form of anarchism?

I'm doing a research paper over revolution for one of my political science classes. One of the questions I ask in it is: How would one legally revolt under the U.S. Constitution? So far I've only found one way: basically a military coup. Every soldier is sworn to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. Key word: domestic. If the government itself is violating and trampling on the constitution, then it is the military's duty to defend against the government. That would be, more or less, revolution to defend the constitution. The government would be overthrown, martial law would ensue for a time, and the government would hopefully be reestablished much less corrupt.

However, we all know it wouldn't be that simple. Corruption is everywhere, especially in the military. The only way this could ever happen is if there were a mostly uncorrupt figure in power (probably either as a high general or the president) with the vision to form a less corrupt system. But the uncorrupt can be corrupted, and power corrupts all too well. And upon gaining absolute power, this top figure would likely become corrupt and take advantage of the position. Of course, the government would have to be reestablished as a mask over the real power. The U.S. always has to keep its appearances.

But just think of it. What if someone could rise to the top without becoming corrupt, overthrow the government, and reestablish it as a truly benevolent system with only the good of the people in mind? Think of how great that would be, and what good it would do for this world. It may be improbable, but it is possible, and even legal.

-SPS-

One of the attitudes I am most irritated by is that which sees every human as a depraved killer, only kept in check by the noble agents of the law*. The vast majority of people simply don't kill others, and the law has nothing to do with this.

I think you're looking at the matter too narrowly.

Yes, the vast majority of people right now aren't interested in killing others, and the law isn't directly responsible for this. But it's responsible indirectly, insofar as it grants them the security they need such that they don't have to worry about self-defense.

The trouble is that all it takes is a minority. If some people are willing to kill others, people are going to want security from them. In the absence of government and law, this is going to be provided by vigilantism--which in the end just reinforces the cycle with its necessarily arbitrary killings.

If you can't rely on an assumption of security, you're not going to take chances. Scared people act rashly. It's not that humans are evil--it's that in the absence of rules that we can expect to be followed, it's absurd (indeed, unfair) to expect us to be saints.

For the minority that do, a much more effective method is to address the reasons. Economic inequality and problems related to this can be solved through communism or socialism.

That's right. Undoubtedly we can greatly reduce violent crime through reforming society. But any attempt to make our society actually serve its people depends upon assumptions of order that the abolition of enforceable law would undermine. Ordinary economic transactions depend upon assumptions of personal security. Who's going to bother trying to make a profit if it gets them killed? And that's not going to change whatever economic system you adopt (because every economic system depends on "incentives" in one form or another), unless you want to overcome people's fear by making them even more afraid of you... which doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

Furthermore, how are you going to implement any economic system without some form of governance? We live in a world of scarcity: you're going to have to have some enforceable means of determining who gets what. Again, the problem is not that people are generally greedy and will take what isn't theirs, but that if some people do, everyone else won't be able to trust that they'll get their share--and they'll be tempted to break the rules too, to protect themselves.

Crimes of passion are unpreventable, as they are generally not taken by humans who are thinking straight at the time. There, the most appropriate method is probably to treat these people like human beings, to recognise that we all mess up on occasion.

I have no problem with that necessarily. I have said nothing of the right means to enforce the law.

Finally, one has sociopaths and the like. These are perhaps the most problematic, and the most effective method is probably to remove them from the community, and be willing, if necessary, to kill them in self defense.

And if you want such a procedure to be carried out legitimately (not by private individuals acting on their own without community approval or supervision), it's government... perhaps limited government, but still government.

humans can generally sort themselves out quite well enough.

I agree. "Generally." The problem is that as long as that remains "general" and not "universal" (and it always will), it will only happen when there's enough force to ensure that the few don't ruin it for the rest.

For a start, if this is true, why do we give such power to the human agents of the law?

Because they represent legitimate public authority: they act (in a just society) in accordance with the freedom of all, not against it.

I feel that one can be justified in calling a sufficiently libertarian socialism anarchy, because I feel that one can class a system as anarchist when there is no government. I see a self-regulated society as perfectly compatible with anarchism, the problem stems when one class of people claim themselves to be superior enough to be justified in ordering others around.

When did I say that a "sufficiently libertarian socialism" isn't anarchy? It is. My point was that anarchy--the absence of rulers--is, in any real-world manifestation, a form of government: collective self-government, government without governors.

Class society represents true lawlessness, because it is a society ruled not by a common authority founded in common agreement, but by the arbitrary power of some over others. The rulers regulate everyone else, but are not themselves regulated.

Anarchy, by the same reasoning, is the most lawful and orderly society, because it denies anyone the right to rule above the collective authority of all.

Therefore if we assume that all humans are out to get others, the government must necessarily become abusive, and therefore should be avoided.

Only if government represents a concentration of power--only if it means that some people rule others.

That's not a necessary truth.

Revolution is justified in fucked-up foreign places which really need to get with the 21st century ... but we start talking revolution where YOU or I live, and it's "oh, I'd support that but we have to be careful."

You mistake me severely if you assume I wouldn't say the same for revolutions elsewhere. Quite the contrary. Revolutionary movements in "fucked-up foreign places" have turned disastrous repeatedly precisely because they haven't been careful.

I believe in revolution, here and elsewhere. But I'm aware of the risks. And revolutionaries who are interested in making things better and not worse should make sure they do it right.

Soheran, the careful revolutionary. Hah!

I'll take that appellation with pride.

For that matter, Soheran, the anarchist who wants a law against publishing Holocaust denial ... because, oh I dunno, it might hurt somebody's feelings?

That wasn't my reasoning, as you know.

Anarchists, for what it's worth, in my experience do not tend to sympathize much with the liberal obliteration of distinctions.

Soheran, as far as I recall, is a Libertarian Socialist, but not an Anarchist. See this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13551802&postcount=13).

What, because I said this?

"We will never have a "perfect" anarchy, but we can work towards an approximation."

That wasn't a rejection of anarchism. It was simply a point about any real-world manifestation of it. The same applies to every other political and economic system, but that mere fact does not mean that it's impossible to support any of them.

Even "anarcho"-capitalists must admit, in the end, that their objection is not to government as such so much as it is to government that takes what they decree to be theirs. They're fine with governance as long as it's carried out by hired mercenary gangs.

this is my favorite part of 'anarcho'-capitalism.

"governments are like armed thugs. we should abolish them and replace them with armed thugs that we hire!"

this is my favorite part of 'anarcho'-capitalism.

"governments are like armed thugs. we should abolish them and replace them with armed thugs that we hire!"

No, it's even better when you realise that without a government to enforce the 'right' of private property, capitalism cannot effectively work, because no man can control more than he is using at the time. I always wonder if people realise this.

Soheran, I have a full response to that longer post in the works, it should be up soonish.

While I do think that while it is necessary to eliminate an institution of territorial monopoly on jurisdiction, I think that unfortunately violent revolution is counter-productive as it necessitates a power grab sufficient to topple the current government through mobilization of factors. Secession from the current political system is preferable, as there is a possibility for peaceful separation without any kind of powergrab but merely a need for the consent of those seceding.

Revolution should be considered legitimate when the domestic situation is totally broken, and the ability to change the system from within itself is no longer a plausible reality. The right to revolution is one that is based entirely on domestic justifications.

A revolution must be a popular movement, composed of a significant portion of the population in active support (>30%), plus another significant portion either unaligned or inactively supporting (>40%).

Further, the right to revolution must be one that is invoked only in the most dire of circumstances, because of the immense costs that it would levy on a society. Further, a short, open, campaign is immensely preferable to a prolonged insurgency (a prolonged and hidden insurgency is not a sign of a truly popular movement.)

Further, elite hijacking of a revolution, such as was seen in the Russian Revolution, and the eventual seizure of the Kerensky by the Bolsheviks, nullifies the justness of the revolution.

Economic system alone is not a legitimate justification for revolution, whether it be left or right.

The right to revolution is one that is based entirely on domestic justifications.

I disagree. If it is legitimate for a foreign people to resist the depredations of the government, then it is legitimate for people within the country to resist in solidarity. The right to fight war in self-defense surely extends to all those who would side with those defending themselves.

How practical such an effort would be is, of course, a wholly different question.

When the government is the equivilent of 1940's soviet russia. Or 1984. Or just flat out undemocratic.

I disagree. If it is legitimate for a foreign people to resist the depredations of the government, then it is legitimate for people within the country to resist in solidarity. The right to fight war in self-defense surely extends to all those who would side with those defending themselves.

How practical such an effort would be is, of course, a wholly different question.

This would require that domestic situations existed under which the possibility to change the course abroad would not exist, and thus, we return to the domestic justifications. If it is possible to change actions abroad from within the system, then there is not justification for revolution. If it is impossible to change actions abroad, then we are looking at the fact that the regime is in the category I discussed earlier, of regimes which cannot be changed through the normal course of civic activities. Thus, it remains a domestic justification.

Practicality is of utmost importance, in regards to revolutions, for, if unsuccessful, a revolutionary movement would be likely not only destroy a significant amount of infrastructure, and kill a significant number of people, but it would also elicit harsher circumstances from the existing regime, and thus be entirely counterproductive.

Or just flat out undemocratic.
So a totalitarian regime which improves its citizens' lives should be rebelled against?

Isn't libertarian socialism a form of anarchism?

Not necessarily. It's quite possible for one to feel that a government is required, obviously non-anarchist, but to still feel in favour of the ideas of economic equality and personal liberty, which can quite neatly lead to libertarian socialism.

I think you're looking at the matter too narrowly.

Oh, I probably am.

Yes, the vast majority of people right now aren't interested in killing others, and the law isn't directly responsible for this. But it's responsible indirectly, insofar as it grants them the security they need such that they don't have to worry about self-defense.

The trouble is that all it takes is a minority. If some people are willing to kill others, people are going to want security from them. In the absence of government and law, this is going to be provided by vigilantism--which in the end just reinforces the cycle with its necessarily arbitrary killings.

If you can't rely on an assumption of security, you're not going to take chances. Scared people act rashly. It's not that humans are evil--it's that in the absence of rules that we can expect to be followed, it's absurd (indeed, unfair) to expect us to be saints.

No, because the law is the source of most crime. Malatesta put it very well in Anarchy, saying "If the police have no crimes to solve, are they not going to invent some?" (paraphrased, I don't have my copy to hand). As long as there are persons whose job is to catch criminals, there will be criminals---who in their right mind would put themselves out of a job?

Anyway, as for the assumption of security. I've found the best general method is to talk to people about it, explain how we're all humans, and so generally reasonable and friendly. The most interesting thing I've found to think of is to ask "Have you ever not done something, for the sole reason that it was against the law". Most people then realise the fundamental useless of law in preventing unwanted behavior. Then one discusses trust, specifically how one typically trusts one's friends, who trust their friends, and so on throughout the whole of society. Introducing the ideas like this, most people I've discussed it with see the point of it, and why a society without the government could work without descending into chaos.

That's right. Undoubtedly we can greatly reduce violent crime through reforming society. But any attempt to make our society actually serve its people depends upon assumptions of order that the abolition of enforceable law would undermine. Ordinary economic transactions depend upon assumptions of personal security. Who's going to bother trying to make a profit if it gets them killed? And that's not going to change whatever economic system you adopt (because every economic system depends on "incentives" in one form or another), unless you want to overcome people's fear by making them even more afraid of you... which doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

Furthermore, how are you going to implement any economic system without some form of governance? We live in a world of scarcity: you're going to have to have some enforceable means of determining who gets what. Again, the problem is not that people are generally greedy and will take what isn't theirs, but that if some people do, everyone else won't be able to trust that they'll get their share--and they'll be tempted to break the rules too, to protect themselves.

Well, capitalist transactions. I've explained, roughly, how I think things should be done on other threads. I don't claim to have some sort of magical insight, but I have some ideas about what might work. In brief, I reckon that for most people, doing what they enjoy and get commended for is enough of a draw for things to happen. Then, for distribution, people who have spare of something can pass it on to those who don't, and so on. People already do things like this with friends and associates, with books for instance, it's quite common for people to give ones they've finished with to others who wish to read them, without needing any sort of government or reward beyond "Thank you". Of course, those who are the recipients of such kindness will probably reciprocate, but that's not required at the time. I'm quite happy to pass stuff on to friends when I don't need it, and quite happy to receive stuff they don't need. What good is it to me to have things I'm not using or needing, when someone else could be finding them useful.

Now, you may say "This sounds all well and good, but what if it's a unique item, what if there isn't enough?" I say that we then have run into problems, and need to be working out how to get more. For the short term, whoever has it has the victory there. If, for instance, I make a necklace for a friend, that item is unique. So the decision as to where it goes is made by the person in possession of it. This isn't ideal, naturally, but having to deal with scarcity never is. Fortunately, I agree somewhat with the Zerowork people that we already have the manufacturing and agricultural capacity to completely avoid scarcity. One of the most important parts of capitalism is scarcity, and there is no market for something that is overproduced and dirt cheap. So we have farmers paid to let fields lie empty, when without the effects of capitalism, they could be producing.

I have no problem with that necessarily. I have said nothing of the right means to enforce the law.

Well, if we are considering this to be the best method, can it really be called the law if there is no punishment? "Thou shalt not" "Or?" "Well, nothing."

And if you want such a procedure to be carried out legitimately (not by private individuals acting on their own without community approval or supervision), it's government... perhaps limited government, but still government.

No, that's one of my biggest issues with government. It is a way for people to each remove their own responsibility, to get a faceless group to do their dirty work. The only way that killing in self defense like this can be considered reasonable is when the individual who does it, acting on their own, takes full responsibility for their actions.

I agree. "Generally." The problem is that as long as that remains "general" and not "universal" (and it always will), it will only happen when there's enough force to ensure that the few don't ruin it for the rest.

And why is a government needed to provide that force?

Because they represent legitimate public authority: they act (in a just society) in accordance with the freedom of all, not against it.

If elected, an oligarchy soon develops, the political classes. If they aren't elected, then how are we to choose them? Name me one government which has always acted in accordance with the freedom of all, has not made decisions that favour big economic interests

When did I say that a "sufficiently libertarian socialism" isn't anarchy? It is. My point was that anarchy--the absence of rulers--is, in any real-world manifestation, a form of government: collective self-government, government without governors.

Class society represents true lawlessness, because it is a society ruled not by a common authority founded in common agreement, but by the arbitrary power of some over others. The rulers regulate everyone else, but are not themselves regulated.

Anarchy, by the same reasoning, is the most lawful and orderly society, because it denies anyone the right to rule above the collective authority of all.

I quite agree with most of this. My only real quibble would be that anarchy would be, I think, better defined as 'collective self-determination', but this is minor.

Only if government represents a concentration of power--only if it means that some people rule others.

That's not a necessary truth.

Well, how can it be otherwise? Unless one is implementing a pure direct consensus democracy, there will always be those who have decisions made for them that they do not wish.

I don't know, but i hope things never get as bad as to justify such an action.
It's more a last chance saloon than a free decision to start killing people.

Thus, it remains a domestic justification.

No, it doesn't.

Case 1: The government is undemocratic, inflexible, etc. Domestic justification for revolution.

Case 2: The government is democratic and accepts the will of the people when they want to change things, but the people are in favor of--or don't care about--the abuses of the government abroad. Non-domestic justification for revolution.

Of course, actually overthrowing the government in such a circumstance would open up a whole new can of worms. Seizing power and forming a dictatorship certainly wouldn't be legitimate. You'd have to keep democracy in place somehow while trying to guarantee that the abuses can't be repeated... you'd probably have to do it in coalition with foreign powers who might actually be able to enforce, say, a treaty of some sort.

No, because the law is the source of most crime.

The law is the source of all crime. The question is whether the law is bad--and in a properly-constituted society, it is not.

Anyway, as for the assumption of security. I've found the best general method is to talk to people about it, explain how we're all humans, and so generally reasonable and friendly.

"Generally" is a very important condition.

The most interesting thing I've found to think of is to ask "Have you ever not done something, for the sole reason that it was against the law".

Again, the issue is not whether most people most of the time are inclined to behave with reasonable rules. Certainly they are. The problem is that without enforcement, this willingness breaks down... because like it or not, there are exceptions. And human beings, while we are not evil, can be very selfish--and understandably so--when we are afraid and insecure.

Furthermore, the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes." Maybe not in cases like murder (which we don't do anyway, in general) or minor crimes (where we don't care about the law). But consider the general economic transactions we make. In cases where there is in effect no law (think music downloading) people have no objection to stealing... and while the harm done may not be significant there, in other respects it would be quite severe.

Well, capitalist transactions.

No. Transactions in any economic system. You can't maintain an economy in an atmosphere of social disorder; people are too scared to leave their homes, to interact with others, to travel places.

Communism along something similar to what you suggest is at least vaguely plausible, but there are things you haven't considered. I don't want to get into an argument about it here, though.

Well, if we are considering this to be the best method, can it really be called the law if there is no punishment?

Surely you wouldn't let a murderer in passion simply get away with it? Imprisonment, perhaps not... but surely at least you'd intervene somehow to make sure it didn't happen again? Even if he or she didn't like it?

No, that's one of my biggest issues with government. It is a way for people to each remove their own responsibility, to get a faceless group to do their dirty work.

The creation of a political public is not an evasion of responsibility so much as it is its assumption.

The only way that killing in self defense like this can be considered reasonable is when the individual who does it, acting on their own, takes full responsibility for their actions.

That's not reasonable at all. Do you really want the poor person who I attack to be forced to fend for herself? Isn't that the opposite of anarchy--isn't that really collaboration with power?

Furthermore, do you really want decisions about self-defense to be in the hands of individuals? Someone insults my mother. I interpret this as an attack and shoot him. I accept responsibility, because I'm obsessed with the ideal of masculinity and take pride in my act. You'd just sit around and tolerate that?

When my neighbor and I have a dispute, and both of us insist (and perhaps even believe) that we are in the right, which of us is acting in self-defense when we use force of some variety? (It may not be violent force... but perhaps, say, I put up a fence when he's not looking. Not deadly, but still arbitrary.)

Leave individuals to themselves when it comes to defending themselves and making decisions about the use of force, and you get a society where human relations are not determined by freedom, but by power--whoever happens to best organize the means of violence. That's not anarchy, that's chaos. That's tyranny.

And why is a government needed to provide that force?

Because that's what a government is. Any other means would simply be a government by another name.

If they aren't elected, then how are we to choose them?

We are them. We directly make collective decisions.

Well, how can it be otherwise? Unless one is implementing a pure direct consensus democracy, there will always be those who have decisions made for them that they do not wish.

Yes, that's the nature of a world of scarcity. So we opt for the next best option: everyone gets a say, and everyone wins and loses some of the time. Decentralized direct democracy.

So a totalitarian regime which improves its citizens' lives should be rebelled against?

Yes. Even a benevolent tyranny can't be justified. It doesn't matter if it improves the lives of the citizenry, because the citizenry cannot be legitimately forced to pursue that end. They are not the slaves of their rulers, however kind those rulers may be.

Yes. Even a benevolent tyranny can't be justified. It doesn't matter if it improves the lives of the citizenry, because the citizenry cannot be legitimately forced to pursue that end. They are not the slaves of their rulers, however kind those rulers may be.
That's ridiculous optimism about the human condition and our history. We've always been slaves to our rulers, and probably always will be. How, therefore, is it unjustifiable to have a benevolent (or at least benign) ruler instead of a malevolent one?

We've always been slaves to our rulers, and probably always will be.

Nonsense. Concretely, there have been and can be democratic advances.

It's the most dogmatic and irrational kind of cynicism to insist that people in a modern Western democracy are no more capable of choosing their government than someone in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

How, therefore, is it unjustifiable to have a benevolent (or at least benign) ruler instead of a malevolent one?

If those are the only choices... hmm, that's a difficult ethical question on several grounds.

Since a revolution in such a society cannot be undertaken with the end of democracy, it would not be justified, and we would be excused from our obligation to respect the freedom of others in that respect.

But would it be legitimate to participate in such a government? Probably not. Its enforcement of the law would be aggression, and its victims could not be legitimately sacrificed however worthy the end.

Nonsense. Concretely, there have been and can be democratic advances.

It's the most dogmatic and irrational kind of cynicism to insist that people in a modern Western democracy are no more capable of choosing their government than someone in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Oh aye?

So who gets to pick who heads up the largest political parties in both the UK and the US, and everywhere in the world?

Not the general public. It's a select group of party members that actually gets the choice. This is hardly democratic, for the best though it may be.
If those are the only choices... hmm, that's a difficult ethical question on several grounds.
Bugger the ethics of it. Do you prefer to live happily as a slave, or in a terrible mood as a slave?

Yeah, it feels artifical to be a cheery slave, but I'd much prefer to have a good life due to it being...well... better, than to have a poor one because it 'fits' more.
Since a revolution in such a society cannot be undertaken with the end of democracy, it would not be justified, and we would be excused from our obligation to respect the freedom of others in that respect.
The ends justify the means in any revolution worth fighting for. I personally define "worth fighting for" as "which will save live by ending a government that kills its own civilians without need".

But there we go. I personally do not care all that much about the nation as a concept, more about the people of that nation. Which is why I feel the way I do on such matters.
But would it be legitimate to participate in such a government? Probably not. Its enforcement of the law would be aggression, and its victims could not be legitimately sacrificed however worthy the end.
Is it really legitimate to participate in any government?

Can one person really represent thousands of individuals, and their experiences and feelings?

Yes. Even a benevolent tyranny can't be justified. It doesn't matter if it improves the lives of the citizenry, because the citizenry cannot be legitimately forced to pursue that end. They are not the slaves of their rulers, however kind those rulers may be.
Ar you arguing that demoncracy has some sort of intrinsic value, or that the force of government is somehow more legitimate when directed by the majority?

Either way, I don't buy it. Tyranny ofthe majority is still tyranny, and a benevolent dictator, I think, would tend to be more responsive to the needs of the people because he would have greater reason to fear the people. Legitmising tyranny through democracy isn't a good thing because it's still tyranny.

I know you claim that everyone wins and everyone losees some of them time through demoncratic decision making, but that's only true with a largely homogenous electorate. The idiosyncratic are always disenfranchised by democracy because they're always outnumbered. Why are they preferences any less valuable than those more widely held?

As such, I would argue that a benevolent dictator is a superior form of government to democracy because it will tend to produce better outcomes, regardless of how "legitimate" those outcomes might be.

Not the general public.

Actually, we have primaries that open the nominations to the mass party membership, which are probably a bad idea, but anyway....

Still, it doesn't matter. The parties have strong incentives to campaign on a popular platform. It's just not profitable for them to do otherwise, because that's where their power comes from... though on the individual level, lobbying on the part of the rich and powerful can change that.

Furthermore, the fact that democracy is limited doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. And it doesn't mean that it's necessarily limited.

Yeah, it feels artifical to be a cheery slave, but I'd much prefer to have a good life due to it being...well... better, than to have a poor one because it 'fits' more.

Then vote for it. Support the policies that will bring it about.

But you can't speak for everyone else. And you can't even speak for yourself forever afterward--if you change your mind in the future, it's not legitimate to rule against your will.

I personally do not care all that much about the nation as a concept, more about the people of that nation.

Me, too. The difference is that I am concerned for their freedom, while you are content if they are happy slaves.

Is it really legitimate to participate in any government?

Can one person really represent thousands of individuals, and their experiences and feelings?

I'm not going to argue with the notion you're suggesting, though I'm not sure I agree with it in full.

It's a shame you're so antipathetic to anarchism... ;)

Ar you arguing that demoncracy has some sort of intrinsic value,

Yes.

a benevolent dictator, I think, would tend to be more responsive to the needs of the people because he would have greater reason to fear the people.

That's absurd.

Which way is easier: an election or a revolution?

The idiosyncratic are always disenfranchised by democracy because they're always outnumbered.

They're not ever disenfranchised because they can always participate in decision-making. True, they can't impose their will. So what? Nobody else can, either.

In society, people who have radically different preferences from everyone else always lose out. Unless your preference is to have your minority of idiosyncratic people rule over everyone else.

The law is the source of all crime. The question is whether the law is bad--and in a properly-constituted society, it is not.

Yes, that can be true. However, the law by it's very nature is a tool of the law-makers, a way for those in power to ensure their power. Hence Malatesta's point about the police.

"Generally" is a very important condition.

Indeed it is. However, one can never make a system in which all are assumed to be perfect, and a system which is predicated on the assumption that most are good and do not need controlling seems to me a better idea than one predicated on the assumption as some are bad, all need controlling.

Again, the issue is not whether most people most of the time are inclined to behave with reasonable rules. Certainly they are. The problem is that without enforcement, this willingness breaks down... because like it or not, there are exceptions. And human beings, while we are not evil, can be very selfish--and understandably so--when we are afraid and insecure.

Furthermore, the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes." Maybe not in cases like murder (which we don't do anyway, in general) or minor crimes (where we don't care about the law). But consider the general economic transactions we make. In cases where there is in effect no law (think music downloading) people have no objection to stealing... and while the harm done may not be significant there, in other respects it would be quite severe.

There is a law against most music downloading. It still happens, despite the best efforts of the enforcement officers. The reason is that the law is not limiting people's behavior. Those who don't download generally don't do it because it's illegal, they don't do it because they see it as immoral, or prefer their music on CD, or don't like those bands. Again, speaking for myself here. I don't download illegally. Not because I am afraid of the legal consequences, but because I simply don't care about the music I might get that way. I just listen to stuff legally instead.

My friends who do pirate media also don't care about the law with respect to it. So whether or not we obey the law is quite incidental to what the law actually is, and this holds in nearly all cases. Therefore the law becomes simply a tool of the government to force people into actions, to silence dissent and punish behavior they oppose. So basically, I contend that most people behave most of the time regardless of rules, and those who don't do so irregardless of rules.

No. Transactions in any economic system. You can't maintain an economy in an atmosphere of social disorder; people are too scared to leave their homes, to interact with others, to travel places.

Communism along something similar to what you suggest is at least vaguely plausible, but there are things you haven't considered. I don't want to get into an argument about it here, though.

Indeed. Fortunately, society is generally self ordering despite government, not because of it. Especially if anarchy is arrived at gradually, which is, I think, the only effective way to go about it,

Surely you wouldn't let a murderer in passion simply get away with it? Imprisonment, perhaps not... but surely at least you'd intervene somehow to make sure it didn't happen again? Even if he or she didn't like it?

What can one do to make sure it doesn't happen again? This is actually a serious question. How can one intervene to prevent such actions from occurring?

The creation of a political public is not an evasion of responsibility so much as it is its assumption.

But the creation of a government is a way for the political public to avoid having to make the decisions, to put their lives into the hands of their rulers, and pray like crazy it works out okay.

That's not reasonable at all. Do you really want the poor person who I attack to be forced to fend for herself? Isn't that the opposite of anarchy--isn't that really collaboration with power?

Furthermore, do you really want decisions about self-defense to be in the hands of individuals? Someone insults my mother. I interpret this as an attack and shoot him. I accept responsibility, because I'm obsessed with the ideal of masculinity and take pride in my act. You'd just sit around and tolerate that?

Who else can effectively make decisions about self defense, and take responsibility for those decisions? If the community decides that your actions were unjustified, the community can request that you leave them. Or more accurately, if individuals decide your actions were unjustified, they can refuse to cooperate with you, or indeed to anything they choose, as long as they are willing, again, to accept responsibility for their actions. After all, if we implement a system through which people can avoid responsibility, how are we to keep things working reasonably?

When my neighbor and I have a dispute, and both of us insist (and perhaps even believe) that we are in the right, which of us is acting in self-defense when we use force of some variety? (It may not be violent force... but perhaps, say, I put up a fence when he's not looking. Not deadly, but still arbitrary.)

Leave individuals to themselves when it comes to defending themselves and making decisions about the use of force, and you get a society where human relations are not determined by freedom, but by power--whoever happens to best organize the means of violence. That's not anarchy, that's chaos. That's tyranny.

Then let the two of you agree on someone to arbitrate, and agree to abide by their decision. Or agree to disagree. A society run under a government is also determined by power, however this is the power of the government, wielded by a separate class, and, importantly, without individual responsibility about the use of that power. That, in my opinion, is the biggest problem with a democratic government, and why a dictator could prove less abusive. A dictator has to personally account for their use of power, while a democratic government can shirk the responsibility by claiming it was the will of the people.

Because that's what a government [I]is. Any other means would simply be a government by another name.

Surely if there are no persons in authority, no way of avoiding taking responsibility for your owns actions, then it cannot be a government. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for a well developed society to be self regulating without resorting to imposed authority.

We are them. We directly make collective decisions.

Well, until that starts taking too long, so we only need to take the major ones, and then... The pattern of government is well established historically. No matter how noble it starts out, it invariably gains power at the expense of the liberty of the people, until they revolt and the cycle starts again.

Yes, that's the nature of a world of scarcity. So we opt for the next best option: everyone gets a say, and everyone wins and loses some of the time. Decentralized direct democracy.

The biggest problem with such is then this: who is taking responsibility for decisions? Here I agree most with Professor De La Paz, a character in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Heinlein. He opines that the only way to control nuclear weapons is to give the responsibility to exactly one person, and make them totally responsible for it. They can do what they will, but they have no excuses for what happens. This, I feel, is the best way of making something happen right---remove the ability for people to make excuses.

I already mentioned how I plan to deal with scarcity: pass resources from where they are to where they aren't, spreading them out as they are needed. Therefore the system is self organising without needing a central government to make decisions.

Actually, we have primaries that open the nominations to the mass party membership, which are probably a bad idea, but anyway....

Still, it doesn't matter. The parties have strong incentives to campaign on a popular platform. It's just not profitable for them to do otherwise, because that's where their power comes from... though on the individual level, lobbying on the part of the rich and powerful can change that.

Furthermore, the fact that democracy is limited doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. And it doesn't mean that it's necessarily limited.
Oh but it is limited, both in concept and execution.

In a democracy, one simply can't take some decisions, such as China's one child policy which, although extremely benefical in the long term, would make you completely unelectable in a democracy.

Hence why things don't change much under a democracy, whether for good or bad.
Then vote for it. Support the policies that will bring it about.

But you can't speak for everyone else. And you can't even speak for yourself forever afterward--if you change your mind in the future, it's not legitimate to rule against your will.
Sorry, I was unaware there was a political party which wanted to abolish democracy for the farce that it is that also has any kind of decent leadership.
Me, too. The difference is that I am concerned for their freedom, while you are content if they are happy slaves.
Damn right, I see no particular intrinsic benefit of freedom for freedom's sake. Obviously, we disagree on this matter, but I think that's always going to be a bone of contention for me and any kind of anachist or libertarian type.
I'm not going to argue with the notion you're suggesting, though I'm not sure I agree with it in full.
Where's the disagreement?
It's a shame you're so antipathetic to anarchism... ;)
Organised society has some serious benefits to almost all of its members.

Yes, that can be true. However, the law by it's very nature is a tool of the law-makers, a way for those in power to ensure their power.

And if we are all "in power"?

However, one can never make a system in which all are assumed to be perfect, and a system which is predicated on the assumption that most are good and do not need controlling seems to me a better idea than one predicated on the assumption as some are bad, all need controlling.

This only makes sense in the abstract.

Most people do not murder. Does that mean that we should not defend ourselves against the murderer? Does that mean we should not take precautions even if a person only may be a murderer?

There is a law against most music downloading.

Yes, but the law is unenforceable, and the real difference between us is over enforcement.

My friends who do pirate media also don't care about the law with respect to it. So whether or not we obey the law is quite incidental to what the law actually is, and this holds in nearly all cases. Therefore the law becomes simply a tool of the government to force people into actions, to silence dissent and punish behavior they oppose.

Surely this example doesn't remotely apply? The vast majority of music downloaders never suffer in the slightest from it. The laws that "force people into actions" and so forth are in an entirely different category.

If the law is truly irrelevant, why do you oppose it so?

So basically, I contend that most people behave most of the time regardless of rules, and those who don't do so irregardless of rules.

But you missed my actual point, which is that if the condition of enforceability extended to economic transactions more broadly, the results would be disastrous.

Why do you think so many people download music... but so few people would steal a CD from a store? Don't you think it has something to do with the risk of getting caught?

Indeed. Fortunately, society is generally self ordering despite government, not because of it.

Why do you think so? Society is perhaps generally self-ordering independent of government, but only in the context of a government system of enforcement.

What can one do to make sure it doesn't happen again? This is actually a serious question. How can one intervene to prevent such actions from occurring?

I don't know; I'm not a psychologist. But the best solution certainly doesn't seem to be "do nothing."

But the creation of a government is a way for the political public to avoid having to make the decisions, to put their lives into the hands of their rulers, and pray like crazy it works out okay.

You forget: collective self-government.

Who else can effectively make decisions about self defense, and take responsibility for those decisions?

We can, as a society. We say: "These are the rules of self-defense." And, of course, we provide for the common defense to help ensure that the situation doesn't have to come to that.

Or more accurately, if individuals decide your actions were unjustified, they can refuse to cooperate with you, or indeed to anything they choose, as long as they are willing, again, to accept responsibility for their actions.

What difference does it make whether they accept responsibility or not? What difference does it make to my freedom? What difference does it make to theirs?

You're still determining human relations by power instead of freedom, you're just adding economic power into the picture. This argument is like the insistence of the anarcho-capitalists that if we put defense in the hands of hired mercenary gangs, people will avoid the ones that abuse others. Really? Always? What if they're afraid of retaliation? What if they're self-interested, or not paying attention?

There's also a double standard here with respect to human nature: you want us to believe the worst of the state, but the best of the people in your society. And you can't escape this double standard, because on a core level the two societies are similar: they both leave us at the mercy of the powerful. Power might be more temporary, more immediate, in your society than in ours, but it is also likely to be more arbitrary... and in any case, I'm interested in freedom for all (or the closest we can come to it), not in replacing one group of rulers with another.

After all, if we implement a system through which people can avoid responsibility, how are we to keep things working reasonably?

This argument is no better than that of the capitalist apologists who say the same thing.

Should I be personally responsible for ensuring that I am not shot in the street? Should I carry a gun wherever I go? Should I refuse to trust people until I'm sure they won't hurt me? That's not a society I want to live in. I don't think it's a society you want to live in either.

Then let the two of you agree on someone to arbitrate, and agree to abide by their decision.

Fine. And when I lose, I refuse to comply. What then?

Or agree to disagree.

With some disputes, you can't do any such thing.

A society run under a government is also determined by power,

Not if it is founded on political equality and freedom.

That, in my opinion, is the biggest problem with a democratic government, and why a dictator could prove less abusive. A dictator has to personally account for their use of power, while a democratic government can shirk the responsibility by claiming it was the will of the people.

A dictator is accountable to no one. A democratic government is accountable to the people.

A dictator can thus shirk all his responsibility, subject to the comparatively low risk of revolution. A democracy cannot do anything of the sort.

Surely if there are no persons in authority, no way of avoiding taking responsibility for your owns actions, then it cannot be a government.

Describe the system of enforcement you're proposing.

Well, until that starts taking too long, so we only need to take the major ones, and then...

Then make this argument to the public. Tell them exactly that. Tell them they are ceding their freedom.

But don't deny their rightful authority. You have no right to make yourself dictator. And if we make everyone a dictator, that is not much better. It's a lose-lose for all founded in denying everyone the freedom to choose what kind of society to live in.

This is one of the problems with market capitalism: because the role of the public is so diminished, we cannot deal with our collective problems together as equals, but only as individuals, with our level of power determined by our wealth or our cleverness or other arbitrary factors. And, of course, since we are always vulnerable to others, we always seek to improve our situation by making others vulnerable to us... at the expense of both our freedom and theirs.

Lose-lose.

The biggest problem with such is then this: who is taking responsibility for decisions?

We are, as a public.

Here I agree most with Professor De La Paz, a character in [I]The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Heinlein. He opines that the only way to control nuclear weapons is to give the responsibility to exactly one person, and make them totally responsible for it.

That's ludicrous. You've already said yourself that this logic justifies dictatorship, so I need not even mention that... it also justifies capitalism, slavery, and every other form of private power imaginable.

If this kind of "responsibility" is your desire, then let's abolish freedom and give absolute power to one person. That way, she can't blame anyone for anything. (Freedom for others is by definition a reduction in personal responsibility.)

Not very anarchist, I think.

I already mentioned how I plan to deal with scarcity: pass resources from where they are to where they aren't, spreading them out as they are needed.

We have enough resources to build one bridge across the river. Some people want to build the bridge at one point, and others at another. How do we decide?

In a democracy, one simply can't take some decisions, such as China's one child policy which, although extremely benefical in the long term, would make you completely unelectable in a democracy.

If the people don't freely choose it, why should it be forced upon them?

Sorry, I was unaware there was a political party which wanted to abolish democracy for the farce that it is that also has any kind of decent leadership.

It's not democracy's fault that most people don't share your opinion. The fact remains that you have no right to impose it upon them.

Where's the disagreement?

I think representative democracy provides strong enough incentives to politicians that at least in some respects it is "democratic enough" to be legitimate.

Organised society has some serious benefits to almost all of its members.

I quite agree. Anarchism is not opposed to organized society.

If the people don't freely choose it, why should it be forced upon them?
Because it's genuinely helpful for China not to be quite so overpopulated as it could otherwise have been?
It's not democracy's fault that most people don't share your opinion.
Quite. It is democracy's fault that governments which would otherwise be considered to be way outside of the lines of what's acceptable are given some level of legitimacy, though.
The fact remains that you have no right to impose it upon them.
Sad but true.
I think representative democracy provides strong enough incentives to politicians that at least in some respects it is "democratic enough" to be legitimate.
So?

If you have a dictatorship, it needs to be effective and popular, or it loses its power to a revolution. This has happened before and will happen again.

If you have a democratically elected government, you wait around for a couple of years and hope that they don't simply rush through populist motions at the eleventh hour, winning the votes of the stupid and the greedy, and 'earning' another four or five years of legitimacy.
I quite agree. Anarchism is not opposed to organized society.
On the other hand, anarchism doesn't form one large, organised society for people to conform to in a similar fashion to a structured state.

Because it's genuinely helpful for China not to be quite so overpopulated as it could otherwise have been?

So? I didn't ask why you thought the One-Child Policy was good. I asked why you thought it could be legitimately imposed against the will of the public.

Because it was good for them? But they are the only ones with the right to decide what is good for them, not the undemocratic government, nor you... indeed, they are the only ones who have the right to rank values in the first place.

Quite. It is democracy's fault that governments which would otherwise be considered to be way outside of the lines of what's acceptable are given some level of legitimacy, though.

Examples?

If you have a dictatorship, it needs to be effective and popular, or it loses its power to a revolution.

Revolutions are massively more difficult than elections. That's not remotely comparable.

If you have a democratically elected government, you wait around for a couple of years and hope that they don't simply rush through populist motions at the eleventh hour, winning the votes of the stupid and the greedy, and 'earning' another four or five years of legitimacy.

And if you have a dictatorship, you wait around... and wait around... and wait around... and see if maybe a revolution (with how much bloodshed?) will arise before the dictatorship can do the minimum necessary to appease people enough to not resort to such extreme and dangerous measures.

I'm keenly aware that plenty of people here have fantasies of dictatorship, but even if they aren't willing to admit its illegitimacy as such they should at least realize that it doesn't work if someone else is dictator.

On the other hand, anarchism doesn't form one large, organised society for people to conform to in a similar fashion to a structured state.

So?

this is my favorite part of 'anarcho'-capitalism.

"governments are like armed thugs. we should abolish them and replace them with armed thugs that we hire!"
Your favourite part of anarcho-capitalism is made of straw?

No, it's even better when you realise that without a government to enforce the 'right' of private property, capitalism cannot effectively work, because no man can control more than he is using at the time. I always wonder if people realise this.
They certainly do. And just like your various anarchist or libertarian versions of socialism, people count on basic respect of what is right.

Fortunately, I agree somewhat with the Zerowork people that we already have the manufacturing and agricultural capacity to completely avoid scarcity. One of the most important parts of capitalism is scarcity, and there is no market for something that is overproduced and dirt cheap. So we have farmers paid to let fields lie empty, when without the effects of capitalism, they could be producing.
One has no connection with the other. The former is non-sensical, the other is an EU policy created by lobbyists taking advantage of the legitimised violence provided by government. Actually, since it's also non-sensical, there is a connection afterall.

It's a lose-lose for all founded in denying everyone the freedom to choose what kind of society to live in.
You keep going on about that particular freedom, but fact of the matter is that there is no such choice. Creating the society I want to live in implies having everyone act according to certain rules, principles and laws.

There is no possible system other than my absolutist dictatorship in which I can come even close to having this freedom. In reality, even a single person's actions can change the society we live in, regardless of everybody else's choice. A democratic outcome, even if we assume it's not just the imposition of a particularly good orator's (now there's a non-arbitrary criterion) idea on the people who weren't silly enough to be swayed, is some sort of compromise, meaning that no one actually had the freedom to choose society. Xenophobialand called freedom the ability to choose between alternatives without coercion. But if the only alternatives I have are a bunch of conservative idiots and a bunch of social democratic idiots, neither of which represent a change from the status quo as far as most things are concerned...what sort of alternatives are those?

Democracy is a numbers game. And in an effort to secure the greatest numbers, leaders must appeal to the lowest common denominator. But those don't accurately represent what society people actually want, at best they represent a few basics, more realistically they represent whatever produces the least change-induced anxiety.

I suppose you can again start talking about collective decisions and tell me I miss the point of democracy because no one actually gets what they want...but to me that just looks like banding people into groups and giving that group a right rather than the people. Then we have a right not to be the victims of genocide, but no such luck for murder. How you can honestly call that free choice, I don't know.

Ultimately there is no such thing as choosing society, other than leaving and going to one that seems like a less bad option. Society is, in other words, an imposition, a limit to the freedom we can hope for. Democracy is the legitimisation of that limit and its idea to move from basic standards of interaction to complete control of "society" (=majority of the voting public) to add new rules or change existing ones at whim - and worse. What you're looking for isn't democracy, it's the right to free (dis-)association.

I personally have a very Locke like approach to this issue. My belif is that all people are born with basic rights : life, liberty, and the right to property. My belif is also that the people give their respective government the power to protect their natural rights, and when the government fails to protect your natural rights, you must overthrow that government (if and only if all other resources have been exhausted).

So? I didn't ask why you thought the One-Child Policy was good. I asked why you thought it could be legitimately imposed against the will of the public.

Because it was good for them? But they are the only ones with the right to decide what is good for them, not the undemocratic government, nor you... indeed, they are the only ones who have the right to rank values in the first place.
I trust in the wisdom of experts more than that of peasants.
Examples?
Most of post-colonial Africa, which has utter shams of elections, whilst people do nothing to resolve the problems there.
Revolutions are massively more difficult than elections. That's not remotely comparable.
It only took a couple of hundred people to set up the Bavarian Soviet in 1919. I don't see why such a movement, if genuinely popular, could not snowball into a fully fledged revolution.
And if you have a dictatorship, you wait around... and wait around... and wait around... and see if maybe a revolution (with how much bloodshed?) will arise before the dictatorship can do the minimum necessary to appease people enough to not resort to such extreme and dangerous measures.
This is exactly the same as a democracy, just with less automatic legitimacy backing it up...
So?
Unity in aims and objectives breeds progress. Tribal affairs don't.

There is no possible system other than my absolutist dictatorship in which I can come even close to having this freedom.

Democracy gives it to you. It just gives it to other people, too.

I'm sorry if you don't like that. There's no other justifiable option.

A democratic outcome, even if we assume it's not just the imposition of a particularly good orator's (now there's a non-arbitrary criterion) idea on the people who weren't silly enough to be swayed, is some sort of compromise, meaning that no one actually had the freedom to choose society.

Not alone. Not exclusively. So? We all had the change to participate. The public as a whole had the choice. As it should.

As I've insisted in the past, the sort of individualism that cannot conceive of the "public" as a legitimate political entity resolves itself in either hermithood or dictatorship. And since I don't see people fleeing and becoming hermits....

Democracy is a numbers game. And in an effort to secure the greatest numbers, leaders must appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Do you mean that they must actually appeal to the public? Yes, they must.

But those don't accurately represent what society people actually want,

Why not? You're willing to accept that consumers are rational in making purchasing decisions, but refuse to believe that voters are rational in making political ones?

more realistically they represent whatever produces the least change-induced anxiety.

Strange, then, that democracies can and have changed things. Sometimes quite substantially.

I suppose you can again start talking about collective decisions and tell me I miss the point of democracy because no one actually gets what they want...but to me that just looks like banding people into groups and giving that group a right rather than the people. Then we have a right not to be the victims of genocide, but no such luck for murder.

What are you talking about? Yes, we have a right not to be murdered. I think you're forgetting that the public is really a bunch of individuals: the rights it has represent individual rights. The fact that democracy allows the public rule means that each individual within the public participates in ruling. Depending on the size of the public, it may not be obvious to any one of them... but so what?

Ultimately there is no such thing as choosing society,

Yes, there is. It's called governance. The question is who gets to do it.

Society is, in other words, an imposition, a limit to the freedom we can hope for.

Unfortunately, for our species and especially in our present cultures, it's also the precondition for decent human lives.

Democracy is the legitimisation of that limit

No. The limit is there. Democracy is an attempt to deal with that limit: to put it under our collective control.

Any other standard is inconsistent with freedom. It involves imposing--and just because the rules are "standard" or "traditional" makes no difference.

What you're looking for isn't democracy, it's the right to free (dis-)association.

I'm not against free association as such, but capitalist free association amounts to the exercise of power through property and is inconsistent with freedom.

I trust in the wisdom of experts more than that of peasants.

Experts serving whom? The public can and does listen to experts. (Not always, but dictators don't listen to them always either.)

I should also add that it's not a question of expertise, but of right--people are not objects, not even objects you should make pretty--but I don't think you'll listen.

Most of post-colonial Africa, which has utter shams of elections, whilst people do nothing to resolve the problems there.

So fake democratic elections serve to legitimize illegitimate governments? Fine, but what does that have to do with democracy? Seems to have much more to do with fraud.

It only took a couple of hundred people to set up the Bavarian Soviet in 1919. I don't see why such a movement, if genuinely popular, could not snowball into a fully fledged revolution.

Because the state has armed force behind it. Because people are afraid of that. Because revolutions cause disruption, chaos, and bloodshed, and people don't like them.

It amazes me that anyone could advocate revolution as a rule for dealing with bad governments. If you need a revolution to overthrow bad rulers, there's something seriously wrong with your political system.

This is exactly the same as a democracy, just with less automatic legitimacy backing it up...

No, it isn't. Your comparison is absurd.

No, because the law is the source of most crime. Malatesta put it very well in Anarchy, saying "If the police have no crimes to solve, are they not going to invent some?" (paraphrased, I don't have my copy to hand). As long as there are persons whose job is to catch criminals, there will be criminals---who in their right mind would put themselves out of a job?


A quibble with this point: it assumes the only justification to the existence of police is actual violation of statute. Even in a society with no actual violators, there would still be the potential to violate, and this threat would be sufficient to justify a constabulatory to protect citizens from this possibility sparking into actuality.

Yes.
Well that's baseless.
That's absurd.

Which way is easier: an election or a revolution?
Which is more relevant to the disenfranchised?

A democratic government has nothing to fear from an election because it already represents the views of the majority.
They're not ever disenfranchised because they can always participate in decision-making. True, they can't impose their will. So what? Nobody else can, either.
The majority always does. The majority's will is routinely imposed on everyone else.

The only way to prevent that is to have immutable restrictions on the power of government.
In society, people who have radically different preferences from everyone else always lose out. Unless your preference is to have your minority of idiosyncratic people rule over everyone else.
And democracy guarantees that those people can never opt out without permission.

A minimalist government that doesn't interfere in people's lives without their consent offers the greatest and most equtable benefit to all. All democracy does is give the majority a chance to steal from and oppress the minority. How is that better? If they want a more invasive government, they can form one themselves within the minimalist architecture, but then no one would be subject to that invasive government involuntarily.

Allowing the majority to make decisions regarding rights, freedom, and property for everyone only makes sense if you assume communal ownership of everything. Only then should the group have any say at all.

No one is ever obligated to respect government authority.

A democratic government has nothing to fear from an election because it already represents the views of the majority.

And how often can a minority make a revolution? By coup? What, then, of the majority?

The majority always does. The majority's will is routinely imposed on everyone else.

"The majority" doesn't exist.

A minimalist government that doesn't interfere in people's lives without their consent offers the greatest and most equtable benefit to all.

This concept is vacuous. What most of those who advocate it actually mean is a government that interferes in people's lives as they want it to and not otherwise--in other words, they want to violate everyone's freedom but their own. They just hide this by pretending there's a "laissez-faire" default that the government messes up. But there isn't; laissez-faire capitalism is itself a social choice, and it is one that is not reducible to "individual freedom."

The exception is those idealistic anarchists who think we can have substantive freedom without the use of force, but I think they're decidedly mistaken.

Allowing the majority to make decisions regarding rights, freedom, and property for everyone only makes sense if you assume communal ownership of everything.

Everyone makes the decision for everyone. "Majority rule" in democracy is a procedure, not a political system; it occurs within a constitutional framework and does not represent a constant class relation.

Democracy assumes only that "ownership" is subsequent to collective decision-making, not prior to it. It makes that assumption precisely because it does believe in freedom: the freedom for people to choose.

I'd say one of two things, when the government begins killing its own people, because one of the prime responsibilities of a government, (so I think), is to protect its people. And, also when the governement breaks its own rules. Such as privacy laws. If they say you can't spy on people, then proceed to tap your phonelines, something is very wrong.

I'd say one of two things, when the government begins killing its own people, because one of the prime responsibilities of a government, (so I think), is to protect its people. And, also when the governement breaks its own rules. Such as privacy laws. If they say you can't spy on people, then proceed to tap your phonelines, something is very wrong.

But surely you see that some things must be permitted to government which are not permitted to each person? Such as taxation, or ... well, spying?

It's in the nature of spying to keep it as secret as possible. Does that only apply to spying outside the country?

Not alone. Not exclusively. So? We all had the change to participate. The public as a whole had the choice. As it should.

As I've insisted in the past, the sort of individualism that cannot conceive of the "public" as a legitimate political entity resolves itself in either hermithood or dictatorship. And since I don't see people fleeing and becoming hermits....
Then you're not talking about a right to choose the sort of society we're living in, but the right to participate in the process that chooses it (or rather, parts of it).

That's different. You need to acknowledge this difference and stop insisting that because one might be similar to freedom, the other must also be. I can be participating in a process and be very unfree. I can vote against being put to death, or being taxed a wealth tax (or rather, I can't, but more on that below). I'm participating in the process, but I'm still being kicked around nonetheless. You can argue that this is fair, or justified or that there is no better option, by all means go for it.

But don't tell me I had the choice whether to get kicked around, just because I happened to put a piece of paper into an urn. There was no scenario in which I could have prevented what is being done to me, there is no violation of the term that you can commit which makes it my choice.

And there is the third option, the one you never mention. Namely, to all be hermits alongside each other. The realisation and respect for the fact that we all are, or at least should be, islands who associate voluntarily and who act by our own free will. We can all live together, we can respect each others individuality and private sphere and then there is suddenly no need for a collective decision to be made at all. The very need for a collective decision making process only comes about when people look at each other as tools.

And that, I think, is why anarchists on both side of the divide don't think democracy can bring legitimacy. And that's what confuses me about your stance in favour of democracy (don't get me wrong, short of "Rule by Constitution" or me as benevolent dictator it's still be least bad system out there - but not because of the mechanism in which decisions are made, but because of the existence of a certain minimum of civil rights). The only way you can reconcile it with your actual ideas for a free society is by assuming that right now people are just idiots who vote the wrong way, somehow dropping the question of what then makes "right voting" by the wayside.

Do you mean that they must actually appeal to the public? Yes, they must.
But what do they appeal to? You wouldn't say that they talk to a camera on a news conference in the same way they'd speak to an individual voter if they were alone in a room somewhere. Elections campaigns are of course done with the public in mind - the question is: what is "the public" in this case? It seems to be a very odd case, one where the dream of every collectivist out there actually comes true and society takes shape seperately of any person in it.

But if that's society, then I want no part of it. Society is an idiot who listens to slogans, waving flags and emotion (more negative than positive ones, of course). You have to speak to society in soundbites and like to a 3 year old. Society doesn't understand complex issues, it wants headlines rather than positions, solutions or arguments.

Why not? You're willing to accept that consumers are rational in making purchasing decisions, but refuse to believe that voters are rational in making political ones?
I think that if the choices were clear and information were sufficiently available, people would vote with their best interests at heart and we'd probably get clearer, if not necessarily better, outcomes.

But we don't vote on policies, we vote on packages. I don't get to vote for low taxes without voting for "we must stay in Iraq until we have won". And the packages are bound to stand for many, often conflicting things. Worse yet, we're not even guaranteed to get the package we vote for, because we're actually voting for a person who is likely to change their mind from time to time as they go along.

Potentially even worse than that, on the majority of government we never get a vote at all. I would like to drastically change the way road rules and enforcement work, but that's not an issue that any party even considers. I don't get to vote for the local policeman either, or the city councillor for road safety. I don't get to vote on the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who have power over me and whose incentives are unclear at best.

All of these problems are amplified in what we today know as democracy, but they're hardly unique to it. They will come up in any voting system beyond a certain size or on an issue beyond a certain complexity. I'm not making a choice on what sort of society I want, even if you equated voting and choosing. I'm making a choice on which monkey is less likely to hurt me, and in both our cases the likelihood of getting someone we don't actually want is about 100%.

Strange, then, that democracies can and have changed things. Sometimes quite substantially.
I suppose sometimes it's possible. Some systems (say a presidential one) are more likely than others (say, a parliamentary democracy based on coalition-building) to make it possible. Neither is particularly likely to produce that sort of outcome.

What are you talking about? Yes, we have a right not to be murdered. I think you're forgetting that the public is really a bunch of individuals: the rights it has represent individual rights. The fact that democracy allows the public rule means that each individual within the public participates in ruling. Depending on the size of the public, it may not be obvious to any one of them... but so what?
It's not obvious because it's diminished to the point of approaching 0. There is not a voter in any country in the world who can honestly claim ever to have made any difference whatsoever, any more than anyone who participated in earth hour can claim to have slowed climate change.

Look, I see your argument and I see where you're coming from. I'm just not sure you do the same for me. We can participate in the process, and that's all great - but our input and what is produced as output are so far as to be completely distinct from each other. So how can I say "I choose the rules in this country"?

And if I can't, if I have to make it ""We choose the rules in this country", then we're not talking about individual rights at all. We have a right, a statement, that is only valid for the group, but not for any individual within it. You once said collective decision making was weird, and I agree. But now I ask: doesn't this weirdness have implications?

Yes, there is. It's called governance. The question is who gets to do it.
And even that is only true for some sort of super-advanced totalitarian hivemind-state.

Unfortunately, for our species and especially in our present cultures, it's also the precondition for decent human lives.
We can scale it back to a minimum, at least. But democracy doesn't do that. And voting for a party that wants to minimise it is akin to the death penalty for suicide in that you contradict yourself even as you make the choice.

No. The limit is there. Democracy is an attempt to deal with that limit: to put it under our collective control.

Any other standard is inconsistent with freedom. It involves imposing--and just because the rules are "standard" or "traditional" makes no difference.
And yet there are things that you wouldn't put under collective control. Not just things like what you do in your bedroom, but also what you look like in public. The latter clearly has externalities, so if the doomsday stories turn out true and a Muslim majority votes that all women have to wear a Burqa, then is democracy an attempt to deal with the limitations society puts on us, or is it a weapon used to legitimise what amounts to oppression? Hell, we could even go as far as arguing that "the social fabric" or "the institution of marriage" was under threat from gays and lesbians - again externalities, again the argument involving social and collective impacts, and again we'd probably agree that a democracy doesn't have the right to rule where your genitals are to go on a saturday night.

I'm not against free association as such, but capitalist free association amounts to the exercise of power through property and is inconsistent with freedom.
And that'll still get a big "meh" from me. The idea of not being able to leave somewhere because someone has a need for my skills or the things I made with them doesn't seem particularly free either. I noticed in the "explain your socialism" thread that a lot of people made a difference because the guy who has a bunch of bricks needed for the factory and the guy who has the unique skill or knowledge needed for it. Just where that's coming from, I'm not quite sure yet - it seems inconsistent at best.

Then you're not talking about a right to choose the sort of society we're living in, but the right to participate in the process that chooses it (or rather, parts of it).

No, I'm talking about both, you're just forgetting that the two are inseparable once we realize that everyone should be free.

Again: democracy is joint freedom, public freedom, freedom together. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

You can argue that this is fair, or justified or that there is no better option, by all means go for it.

But don't tell me I had the choice whether to get kicked around, just because I happened to put a piece of paper into an urn.

But the two are ultimately one and the same in terms of freedom. In the recognition that everyone, and not just you, is entitled to freedom, and that the fulfillment of this recognition must be the sovereignty of all, you can willingly accept the will of the public you participate in.

Or you can reject it. But if you do that, you have no claim of "right" against anyone else, because you have refused to reconcile your freedom with theirs.

And there is the third option, the one you never mention. Namely, to all be hermits alongside each other. The realisation and respect for the fact that we all are, or at least should be, islands who associate voluntarily and who act by our own free will.

Unfortunately, there are limits to human free will, and it stops somewhere around the point where we try to mess with human nature and the fundamental way human societies work. We don't all have our own planets to live on. We're not perfectly independent creatures with no social needs who can interact with others on automatically free terms.

No, we live in societies with scarcity, which means we must have means of dispute resolution, and interdependence, which means that "private" dispute resolution is doomed to be arbitrary and power-driven. There's no way around these facts. We can't magically wish them away.

We can all live together, we can respect each others individuality and private sphere and then there is suddenly no need for a collective decision to be made at all.

Yes, there is. Don't be disingenuous. What constitutes "individuality and private sphere"? Where does it end? Can I own a nuclear bomb? What if I say that my private sphere encompasses part of what you consider to be yours? What if your private sphere is such that I am denied the meaningful capacity for individual freedom? Since we're all individuals, should we expect to provide our own security, and enter an eternal arms race with everyone else?

Libertarianism claims descent from liberalism, and in raw "results" terms it is indeed close to certain historical varieties (on economics if not elsewhere.) But it's a dishonest characterization insofar as it forgets that liberalism always had a tension between public and private: freedom is great, but substantive freedom always depends upon social rules. A libertarian system of rights is one resolution of this tension, but just one--it is not automatic or definitive, not intuitively or obviously the right one. To assert its absolute binding status as the way to be free in society is really to abstract from its own foundation.

The crucial insight here, suggested by Rousseau, is that if we really want to be free we have to be able to decide as a public on which resolution to adopt, and that means that we have to have democracy. Without that, some people are imposing their will upon others: society is still being chosen, but without the participation, and therefore without the freedom, of the full public.

The very need for a collective decision making process only comes about when people look at each other as tools.

That gets it exactly wrong. We can only begin to reject a collective decision-making process when we have objectified everybody else: when we have forgotten the need for joint freedom.

The exception, as I noted to Llewdor, is those anarchists who think we can do without any social rules, because they have not abandoned the ideal of joint freedom, but simply imagined away the need for a public to deal with it. What they've really done is made us all dictators, which really means that we are all slaves. But at least they realize that they aren't keeping the property system.

And that, I think, is why anarchists on both side of the divide don't think democracy can bring legitimacy.

Anarchists on my side of the divide have generally respected democracy; we have simply argued that existing democracies are not truly democratic (or democratic enough.)

The only way you can reconcile it with your actual ideas for a free society is by assuming that right now people are just idiots who vote the wrong way, somehow dropping the question of what then makes "right voting" by the wayside.

No. I believe in democracy whether I lose or I win. A society where the people democratically reject every one of my proposals is better than one where I am dictator.

But if that's society, then I want no part of it. Society is an idiot who listens to slogans, waving flags and emotion (more negative than positive ones, of course). You have to speak to society in soundbites and like to a 3 year old. Society doesn't understand complex issues, it wants headlines rather than positions, solutions or arguments.

Deal with it. Freedom is freedom. You don't get to rule because you think you're better--and, indeed, since virtually everyone thinks they're better, I tend to think most of us are wrong. (All of us, probably. Ruling is difficult.)

In any case, I see no real indication that people are anywhere near as stupid as they're supposed to be. And the (in some respects profoundly undemocratic) way political campaigns are run today is not a necessary constant.

But we don't vote on policies, we vote on packages. I don't get to vote for low taxes without voting for "we must stay in Iraq until we have won". And the packages are bound to stand for many, often conflicting things.

This is the politics of coalitions, and it actually makes good sense. It means that minorities can unite to get their way. People who don't like the compromise package can vote against it. They don't get exactly what they want, no, but nobody does.

Consider what the group of people who agree with you are actually doing. You're going with the less objectionable party--and that means that both parties have an incentive to be less objectionable to you. Of course, this incentive is countered by those who have opposing political views to yours, but that's democracy.

Worse yet, we're not even guaranteed to get the package we vote for, because we're actually voting for a person who is likely to change their mind from time to time as they go along.

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of representative democracy, but if someone flagrantly violates campaign promises, they generally get into political trouble.

Potentially even worse than that, on the majority of government we never get a vote at all. I would like to drastically change the way road rules and enforcement work, but that's not an issue that any party even considers.

That's probably because your concerns aren't shared. In a sense, it's an "invisible" vote--nobody talks about it because it doesn't appeal enough to anybody (most people).

I don't get to vote for the local policeman either, or the city councillor for road safety. I don't get to vote on the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who have power over me and whose incentives are unclear at best.

Who themselves follow rules and are accountable to standards indirectly set in place by the public.

There is not a voter in any country in the world who can honestly claim ever to have made any difference whatsoever, any more than anyone who participated in earth hour can claim to have slowed climate change.

That's right, but that's just how collective action works. The large-scale behaviors that do make a difference are ultimately just sums of the small-scale behaviors that seem not to.

We can participate in the process, and that's all great - but our input and what is produced as output are so far as to be completely distinct from each other. So how can I say "I choose the rules in this country"?

You can't; you're not dictator.

And if I can't, if I have to make it ""We choose the rules in this country", then we're not talking about individual rights at all. We have a right, a statement, that is only valid for the group, but not for any individual within it.

No. The equivalence is this: "We choose the rules in this country" and "I participate equally in choosing the rules in this country." That's the most the individual can claim; he or she is entitled to freedom, but so is everyone else.

You once said collective decision making was weird, and I agree. But now I ask: doesn't this weirdness have implications?

Actually, no, because it's really our own failure, not the system's. Votes make a difference; it's just easier to see it from the collective angle than from the individual one.

We can scale it back to a minimum, at least.

But we can't. The individualist ideal, assuming it doesn't ultimately discard the notion of universal freedom, just doesn't have a realizable material manifestation in an economy (and a society more broadly) marked by interdependence. I mean, in theory you could try to make us all self-sufficient and self-defending, but I wouldn't want to live in a society like that and neither would you.

Having effects on other people is just a fact of social living; it's not something we can minimize.

The latter clearly has externalities, so if the doomsday stories turn out true and a Muslim majority votes that all women have to wear a Burqa, then is democracy an attempt to deal with the limitations society puts on us, or is it a weapon used to legitimise what amounts to oppression?

Equality under law. I'm not an absolute majoritarian. Both of the examples you give are actually rather cut-and-dry as such matters go.

The real democratic difficulties in this respect, for me anyway, are things like "Should the US government make a real effort to remedy racial inequality?" That's not going to be easy to do against a white majority and it's not at all clear-cut enough to legitimate under an equality under law clause, but it's not unreasonable to classify a refusal to do so as a case of tyranny of the majority.

The only real answer you can give in a case like that, assuming coalition politics fails (as in theory it perhaps shouldn't but in practice it does), is to try to create a political atmosphere principled enough for the public to accept an argument like that one even against the interests of the majority. Not likely, I'll be the first to admit. But there's not much else you can do.

I noticed in the "explain your socialism" thread that a lot of people made a difference because the guy who has a bunch of bricks needed for the factory and the guy who has the unique skill or knowledge needed for it.

If the guy actually "has" it--if he owns it according to the existing rules of property--it would only be taken the same way property is taken today: with fair compensation and for the public good. Bricks are probably not going to be an issue.

In terms of free association, there's nothing stopping you from taking stuff, as long as it's yours. Of course, in a socialist commune you're not going to be owning a factory, but in terms of your personal freedom you're still protected.

Just where that's coming from, I'm not quite sure yet - it seems inconsistent at best.

It's not. Property rights over external objects are positive (not non-negative, but non-natural): their legitimacy is derived from collective freedom. But your autonomy as an individual is always the foundation of everything else.

I'd say one of two things, when the government begins killing its own people, because one of the prime responsibilities of a government, (so I think), is to protect its people. And, also when the governement breaks its own rules. Such as privacy laws. If they say you can't spy on people, then proceed to tap your phonelines, something is very wrong.

But surely you see that some things must be permitted to government which are not permitted to each person? Such as taxation, or ... well, spying?

It's in the nature of spying to keep it as secret as possible. Does that only apply to spying outside the country?

I'm not going to bite you. Just trying to keep the thread ticking over so the big players don't drop the subject.

I only bite posters I know are wearing Dragonskin!

Well, for it to be legitimate, the system of government has to be one that doesn't allow for full democratic reform. However, whether this makes the revolution just or not is a different matter.

To clarify something that seems to be lurking in both my discussions with Neu Leonstein and with UNIverseVERSE: it's not that I'm unique among anarchists in advocating democratic decision-making or the social enforcement of certain rules. If there's a major place where my "anarchy" is rather different from that of most other anarchists, it's really over the issue of laws: I don't think customary rules will ever be sufficient in modern societies with complex economies, and that means that I accept the "rule of law" in a rather liberal sense.

That said, I agree with my ideological compatriots that this "law" should not be an abstraction given from above. The law of a free people is a law that is their own creation, the product of their own wills, as directly as is reasonably possible. It is the rule and not the limitation of their own freedom.

Edit: This thread has gotten decidedly off-topic. Oh, well.

A quibble with this point: it assumes the only justification to the existence of police is actual violation of statute. Even in a society with no actual violators, there would still be the potential to violate, and this threat would be sufficient to justify a constabulatory to protect citizens from this possibility sparking into actuality.

But if there is a constabulary, then one can be damn sure that said constabulary will justify their continued existence by catching criminals.

Anyway, I've been arguing very incoherently. Allow me to try to collect my position. I feel that the rule of any over any other is never justified. That is, there are no circumstances where a government can validly exist. Now, I will admit to taking an optimistic view of human nature. Therefore we can hopefully agree that with such a view, a government becomes superfluous and unnecessary. So let us consider a pessimistic view of humanity.

It seems to me that if we consider all humans fundamentally flawed, and likely to be corrupted by power, that a government becomes more of a danger than a bonus. This is because we have a group of persons who have been given power over the rest of society, and as such are in a position where attempting to keep that power is their main goal. There is, after all, nothing especially noble about those in positions of government, given that most of us insist they must be drawn from the population at large.

I feel, therefore, that a society without government is the ideal to strive towards, and that government by it's very nature is either oppressive or unnecessary. So how would things work without a government? Much the same as they do now, except without the intrusion of the government. Most people, after all, tend not to really decide what to do on the basis of what the law or government say. They tend to do what they wish, and do not care too much about the law. To quote Will Durant:

If man asks for many laws it is only because he is sure that his neighbour needs them; privately he is an unphilosophical anarchist, and thinks laws in his own case superfluous.

Now, how would such a society organise itself to do things? How, for instance, would they decide where to build a bridge? I don't claim to know exactly what may happen after the revolution, so all I'm going to talk about here is what I think is the way to do things. So, for building a bridge. We are assumed to only have the resources for one bridge, and that there are two places it could be built. Those who wish it to be built in each place can simply get together and talk. If they really cannot agree, then the best method is probably to find a respected third party to act as an arbitrator, and to agree to be bound by xir decision. Then they can each put forward their case, and have a decision made that they are hopefully willing to agree on. The important thing to note here is that the 'court', for want of a better word, is not imposing it's decision upon anybody. The parties involved have agreed to seek a decision from someone else, and have agreed to abide by it. This should, I hope, make sense.

Of course, one could end up with one party refusing to comply with the decision made. In that case, the rest of society can quite reasonably refuse to cooperate with them. Or more accurately, each individual who makes up society can decide that they aren't going to work with people who go back on their word like that. One of the most important parts of my ideas is that individuals acting on their own initiative can carry out collective actions without the need for a central organising government. That's the core of my ideas for distribution of goods as well, that each passes what they don't need onto those who do need it, and so everything ends up where it is needed eventually.

Just to address a few points raised by Soheran. I think that most people don't steal from stores because it conflicts with their morals, because they can see the harm they are doing. I know that I could quite easily shoplift if I wished, and get away with it. I don't, not because of fear of the law, but because I can directly see the people I would be harming by doing so. Of course, there's less of a drive there in large multinational corps and the like, but I tend to avoid those.

I feel that damaging the freedom of the many in order to deal with a potential few troublemakers is an unacceptable trade-off. Such a tiny majority of people commit murders, and even less would commit them with economic equality, that I don't see the need of a government to protect society from such persons. Instead, I feel that society itself will be able to organise as necessary to deal with such persons.

Yes, it is true that the idea of complete personal responsibility can be used to justify a dictatorship. However, one is still unacceptable because of the lack of freedom for other persons. Instead, I proclaim the dictatorship of each over themself, and no other. So there is nothing that can be avoided, no way for any person to shirk the responsibilities brought upon them by their actions. And therefore each will, out of self interest, take an interest in the welfare of others, according to the ideas of mutual aid.

Now, there is no government where we are all in effective power. The closest that anybody has come so far was Athenian Democracy, which had the important point of no elections, thereby removing the possibility of a political class forming. However, with any sort of elected authority, one naturally gets two classes forming in society: the voters and the votees, to coin a word. That is, those who are simply selecting a ruler and those who are contending for rulership. Yes, it is technically possible to move from one to the other. However, history again shows us that one tends to end up with very little mobility between them, so one ends up with a de facto oligarchy. That's the main reason I oppose democratic government---it doesn't stay democratic for long.

As for power. Yes, I will admit to there being something of a double standard. But this is why it seems to me somewhat justified. If we assume that people are generally bad, then government will provide opportunities to bring out the worst in them. This is why I feel that the concentration of power required by a government is not a good thing, and why I feel that, because most people are reasonable, a society without a government will work. "Aha!" you say, "If most people are reasonable, then surely government will also be?" To this I say no, because those who are unreasonable and wish for power will naturally be attracted to government. Furthermore, even those who are naturally reasonable will likely find themselves corrupted by it. I know I wouldn't trust myself in government, and I consider myself a fairly reasonable person.

When the government flouts the limitations imposed on it by the constitution, or when epic lulz are likely to ensue from armed insurrection.

*nods*

Case 2: The government is democratic and accepts the will of the people when they want to change things, but the people are in favor of--or don't care about--the abuses of the government abroad. Non-domestic justification for revolution.

Then it is no longer a popular revolution, though. It is a movement that directly contradicts the will of the populace, and is a violation of structured order that provides for internal changes of policy. To say that there is such a right to revolution is to claim that there is a right to chaos and destruction if a democratic and malleable government embraces policies a minority, even a minority of one, does not like.

As I said earlier, revolutions need to have a critical mass to be a popular movement, and that the possibility for change is not existent.

Of course, actually overthrowing the government in such a circumstance would open up a whole new can of worms. Seizing power and forming a dictatorship certainly wouldn't be legitimate. You'd have to keep democracy in place somehow while trying to guarantee that the abuses can't be repeated... you'd probably have to do it in coalition with foreign powers who might actually be able to enforce, say, a treaty of some sort.

Then it's a conventional war, with fifth columnists. Not a revolution.

Hm. I'm not quite certain, though I can say a couple of things without reservation:

Revolution is justified when secession is impossible. There may be cases where secession isn't justified, or it is justified but revolution isn't, but secession must be explored as an option.

When the revolution is likely to make things better off for everyone than the existing order. Simply because the existing order commits atrocities doesn't mean greater atrocities can't be committed as a result of revolution.

To say that there is such a right to revolution is to claim that there is a right to chaos and destruction if a democratic and malleable government embraces policies a minority, even a minority of one, does not like.

It's not a question of "like." I may virulently oppose a whole host of domestic policies--as a matter of fact, I do--but as long and insofar as they express the democratic will of the public, I have no right to impose my will.

But I have no obligation to accept the public will on a subject over which it has no sovereignty: how others in other countries should live and be treated. Most of the time, this isn't going to come into effect in any form but civil disobedience, and shouldn't go any further. But that is less a distinction of principle than one of efficacy and proportionality, and those sorts of judgments are subject to circumstance.

Then it's a conventional war, with fifth columnists. Not a revolution.

It is from the perspective of the citizens who revolt. The justification must be in those terms: war against the established authority of the place in which you live.

Now, I will admit to taking an optimistic view of human nature. Therefore we can hopefully agree that with such a view, a government becomes superfluous and unnecessary.

Yes and no. On the most positive assessment of human nature possible, we could have a society where people willingly and without fail accepted the public will, and thus one that had no need for enforcement. But there would still be disagreement--there is no "one right answer"--and our disagreements would have to be resolved by rules that are a product of common deliberation and agreement.

It seems to me that if we consider all humans fundamentally flawed, and likely to be corrupted by power, that a government becomes more of a danger than a bonus. This is because we have a group of persons who have been given power over the rest of society, and as such are in a position where attempting to keep that power is their main goal.

This is a wonderful argument for minimizing the role of exclusive power in governance. But that is as far as it will go.

Most people, after all, tend not to really decide what to do on the basis of what the law or government say. They tend to do what they wish, and do not care too much about the law.

Again, I don't actually think this is true. It is true on both extreme ends of things: MOST people aren't inclined to murder, MOST people aren't bothered by laws about trivial things. But especially in economic transactions and property relations in general, what the law says is vitally important, even to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. ("What's the border between my property and yours?" "What does the employment contract say?" And so forth.)

Can we construct an economy that runs according to principles radically different enough that such rules will no longer be necessary? Maybe, in the context of truly extreme social change... but while you may identify with a kind of communism that allows that, would you really insist that everyone live like you?

Of course, one could end up with one party refusing to comply with the decision made. In that case, the rest of society can quite reasonably refuse to cooperate with them. Or more accurately, each individual who makes up society can decide that they aren't going to work with people who go back on their word like that.

So what difference have you made? Has the losing party been any less imposed upon? What freedom do they have now that they didn't have before? The freedom to refuse arbitration? But if they refuse to accept arbitration, then won't you just say that people will refuse to cooperate with them, too?

To the extent that society on the individual level will fail to act as you say--and a quite considerable extent it will be, due to problems of coordination and free-riding--you legitimate exclusive, minority rule: you say that the few could, for instance, hold the community hostage by taking enough of the resources to prevent the bridge from being built in any place but their preference.

To the extent that society does manage to use this kind of social pressure to enforce rules, what difference does it make? It's not like we kill or imprison people who lose a vote. They're imposed upon in a democracy, and they're imposed upon in your alternative.

One of the most important parts of my ideas is that individuals acting on their own initiative can carry out collective actions without the need for a central organising government.

But they can't. Individuals working alone can't manage an economy of any complexity. That's why we have institutions like corporations, which function only through the social enforcement of property rights. In a socialist system, the nature of the property changes, but not the need for some kind of enforcement.

Just to address a few points raised by Soheran. I think that most people don't steal from stores because it conflicts with their morals, because they can see the harm they are doing. I know that I could quite easily shoplift if I wished, and get away with it.

Perhaps you could. It's really a question of marginal benefit and marginal cost: the cost of preventing minor shoplifting isn't always (or usually) worth the benefit to the store of doing so. But if you get rid of the law, you collapse this reasoning entirely: you deprive them of their capacity to prevent theft at all. ("But most people aren't inclined to steal!" Maybe not. But what happens when some people do? People are tempted to protect themselves, to ensure that they'll get their share, and they'll do it by stealing if there seems to be no other alternative.)

I feel that damaging the freedom of the many in order to deal with a potential few troublemakers is an unacceptable trade-off.

Whose freedom are we damaging? Is it an imposition to demand that people not murder?

Instead, I feel that society itself will be able to organise as necessary to deal with such persons.

Fine. And what is such organization but government?

Instead, I proclaim the dictatorship of each over themself, and no other.

But individuals are not on different planets--we live together in society, our actions affect one another. Make every person a dictator over themselves, and you in effect make them a dictator over others by denying others the means to restrict their actions.

So there is nothing that can be avoided, no way for any person to shirk the responsibilities brought upon them by their actions.

But "responsibilities" at this level are just moral ones, and private morality generally conflicts. Some people think it's morally justified to kill gays or lynch blacks or bomb abortion clinics. Who's going to stop them? Their victims? Perhaps sometimes, but not always... and who wants to live in a society where we must always be concerned for our own self-protection? Other individuals within society? But who would sacrifice a great deal of their own time and effort, and quite possibly risk great personal danger, for such an effort? Enough to provide us with collective security?

This is a major free-rider problem, and there's no way out of it in your society--no way out of it without social organization, without a system of enforcement legitimated by the public and probably funded by some sort of taxation.

And therefore each will, out of self interest, take an interest in the welfare of others, according to the ideas of mutual aid.

Pure self-interest can only take us so far, as supporters of capitalism forget. If I only help others when they are likely to help me back, I will help the rich and the powerful first, and the poor and the oppressed last, if at all.

The closest that anybody has come so far was Athenian Democracy, which had the important point of no elections, thereby removing the possibility of a political class forming.

We can get even closer than Athens in a society with economic equality.

If we assume that people are generally bad, then government will provide opportunities to bring out the worst in them.

If we assume that people are generally bad, then a lack of law and enforcement will bring out the worst in them, too. They will not be secure from others, but they will have the opportunity to exploit others' insecurity. And they will do so, even if they are not bad at all, because they will be scared and will desire to protect themselves.

If you really want to know when you should revolt, you'd read the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson pretty much spells it out for you with a lovely sylogism.

If you really want to know when you should revolt, you'd read the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Okay, first, that statement isn't self-evident at all. Second, what does "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean in material terms, anyway?

Does "life" mean that the government can't institute the death penalty, or send people to fight wars?

Does "liberty" mean that the government can't imprison people? Is it just freedom from arbitrary arrest? But what's the standard of arbitrariness? Does it extend beyond "never without charge"? Does it mean that we have a share in choosing our government? But how much of one, and how do we express it? Does it refer to some other sort of individual right?

As for "pursuit of happiness"... interesting. If I decide to pursue happiness by stealing your car, is that okay? Am I supposed to do some kind of utilitarian calculation to see whose happiness control of the car would enhance more?

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This statement isn't self-evident, either. How about a real argument?

Are governments only instituted among men? What about women?

What constitutes "the consent of the governed"? Democracy? What about the minority? Is it okay if we only let property-owners vote?

Does it mean mere tacit consent, in that people don't leave? Then why are they whining instead of leaving?

Does it have some sense of "hypothetical consent from a rational person"? Well, that's useless without a more specific standard.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Again, not self-evident.

"The right of the people"? Which people? Any individual who makes the judgment that government has become destructive? Isn't that a recipe for chaos? Should we have a vote before we decide to revolt?

What's this about "their safety and happiness"? Is "safety and happiness" really equivalent to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? In Brave New World, the people had safety and happiness, but I don't think I'd say they had liberty.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

Quite.

and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Because people are reluctant to overthrow governments, all attempts to overthrow governments are justified? Are people really so reluctant, if they can get away with it? And what if the people are particularly stubborn or disobedient or irrational or violent-minded?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,

So absolute despotism is inherently compatible with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? (Or is it referencing the "safety and happiness" formulation now?) Well, that's a reasonable start, but I still want a more precise understanding of those concepts.

What if absolute despotism is the only way to prevent society from falling into chaos? What if it's the only way we can pay for wars to protect far-flung colonies?

Even "anarcho"-capitalists must admit, in the end, that their objection is not to government as such so much as it is to government that takes what they decree to be theirs. They're fine with governance as long as it's carried out by hired mercenary gangs.

Nonsense. Anarcho-capitalists want nothing but a society based on contract and voluntarism. Governance is only accepted by the ancap through consent and not by force.

That you do not accept the capitalist economics that seeks to show a society where capital and free association can coexist does not give you license to mis characterize ancap theory on force and government.

Nonsense. Anarcho-capitalists want nothing but a society based on contract and voluntarism.

By their definitions. Assuming their conceptions of property. And how do they enforce their property rights? With force.

A dictator can make the same claim by the same reasoning.

Governance is only accepted by the ancap through consent and not by force.

That's what they say. They only say so because they assume a private property default.

Everyone has the right to revolt against the government for any reason. Especially in a country founded on a revolution. Otherwise would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

Those who say that in a democracy, you do not have that right are incorrect. Primarily because it is virtually impossible to change the form of government. Look at the US: little has changed in 200 years. And it's well-fortified against legal change.

Everyone has the right to revolt against the government for any reason. Especially in a country founded on a revolution. Otherwise would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

Nonsense. We can perfectly legitimately say that some revolutions are not justified, but others are. Or we can argue that while revolutions are not legitimate, post-revolutionary governments may be.

Look at the US: little has changed in 200 years.

...

Look at the US: little has changed in 200 years.

Translation: The changes that Sel Appa wants haven't happened.

Experts serving whom? The public can and does listen to experts. (Not always, but dictators don't listen to them always either.)
Experts serving the government, which in turn serves the population, albeit only to an extent - still, without the very rapid scaling down of birth rates, the current and future economic state of China would be in a worse way -
I should also add that it's not a question of expertise, but of right--people are not objects, not even objects you should make pretty--but I don't think you'll listen.
You're right, people are not objects. People are an ends, not a means, and that's absolutely correct. But at the same time, a person's rights are a means rather than an ends. If some need to be put on the backburner
So fake democratic elections serve to legitimize illegitimate governments? Fine, but what does that have to do with democracy? Seems to have much more to do with fraud.
It just goes to show that even a veneer of democracy stops people rising up, due to the automatic legitimacy of an elected, or even 'elected' government.
Because the state has armed force behind it. Because people are afraid of that. Because revolutions cause disruption, chaos, and bloodshed, and people don't like them.

It amazes me that anyone could advocate revolution as a rule for dealing with bad governments. If you need a revolution to overthrow bad rulers, there's something seriously wrong with your political system.
Not as a rule for dealing with simply bad governments, no. That's simply ridiculous. For dealing with governments who are killing their own citizens for no good reason, yes. For dealing with simply incompetent governments, that's off the cards. As you say, people don't particularly like revolutions, or the chaos and violence they inevitably cause. This is why it's anything but a way of resolving somewhat petty issues with governments.
No, it isn't. Your comparison is absurd.
How so?

Democracy is a waiting game by all means.

Everyone has the right to revolt against the government for any reason.
Don't be stupid.
Those who say that in a democracy, you do not have that right are incorrect. Primarily because it is virtually impossible to change the form of government. Look at the US: little has changed in 200 years. And it's well-fortified against legal change.
The actual systems of government are similar to how they were 200 years ago, yes, you're right. That the US is really particularly similar to the days of slavery, thoroughly well dug-in institutionalised racism and women not having the vote is not.

The state is always the assertion of one class and the repression of another. The state itself exists because of the irreconcilability of the interests of labor and capital, thus one or the another must be in power. Personally I prefer a society run by and for the vast working class majority.

Capitalism is never voluntary, in order to stop a worker getting the full product of their labor, wage-labor must be enforced by the bourgeois state. If each worker was able to have the full product of their labor then such inequality would not exist, wage-labor is parasitic because the bourgeois takes the vast majority of the labor value of the worker and only gives him a small amount back in the form of a wage (basically a tiny incentive to keep him fed and fit to keep working).

Property is theft!

Experts serving the government, which in turn serves the population, albeit only to an extent - still, without the very rapid scaling down of birth rates, the current and future economic state of China would be in a worse way -

And if the people of China decided that that was a price they were willing to pay?

But at the same time, a person's rights are a means rather than an ends.

Some of them are. Some of them aren't. The right to freedom is fundamental (indeed, it is the basis for all the others), and its expression in society can only be democracy.

It just goes to show that even a veneer of democracy stops people rising up, due to the automatic legitimacy of an elected, or even 'elected' government.

Again, that's a problem with fraud, not with democracy. In a democracy, the government could be removed in other ways.

Not as a rule for dealing with simply bad governments, no. That's simply ridiculous. For dealing with governments who are killing their own citizens for no good reason, yes. For dealing with simply incompetent governments, that's off the cards.

All the more reason to support a democracy that can deal with such incompetent governments without causing the destruction revolutions do.

How so?

Because it is far easier for the public to remove governments they don't like.

And if the people of China decided that that was a price they were willing to pay?
Nope, and would they have agreed were it put to a vote? Probably not. On the other hand, the long term economic benefits of the scheme are to every Chinese citizen's advantage.
Some of them are. Some of them aren't. The right to freedom is fundamental (indeed, it is the basis for all the others), and its expression in society can only be democracy.
The right to freedom is not particularly fundamental, no. The only rights I consider as absolutely fundament are the rights to life and to be fed and watered, as well as patched up by the state, as well as the right to education.

Freedom of expression is lovely, but some people take it too far, and other people are just woefully misinformed. Do they really merit a voice? No.
Again, that's a problem with fraud, not with democracy. In a democracy, the government could be removed in other ways.
Such as?
All the more reason to support a democracy that can deal with such incompetent governments without causing the destruction revolutions do.
And what do you do when nobody else has your point of view on the electoral register? Sit about complaining ineffectually. That's about it.
Because it is far easier for the public to remove governments they don't like.
On the other hand, it's also far easier for governments to cheer up the public. If you only need to sway public opinion positively once every couple of years, tops, then it's a lot easier to stay in power than a dictatorship which needs to keep its population reasonably cheery or be kicked out of power.

Isn't right of revolution an inherent right?

It's not something that can be effectively taken away so if a sufficiently large group thinks something is wrong or that wrong people are in power then kudos to them for starting up a revolution.

Heck, isn't revolution just another term for spontaneous democracy? :p


The only situation where I wouldn't accept revolution is when a revolution of minority would clearly end up causing more harm to the average person than good, though even then the people promoting that specific revolution should have the right to emigrate or secede. :D

From the greatest document ever transcribed:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


That's my reason for "other" as there is just more than what is listed and I add that when a government has become so corrupt, inept, and incapable of doing its most fundamental duties it must be removed.

On the other hand, the long term economic benefits of the scheme are to every Chinese citizen's advantage.

That's theirs to determine, not yours. If that's a price they're willing to pay, why should anyone stop them?

The right to freedom is not particularly fundamental, no.

It doesn't matter if you deprive someone of freedom for their benefit (or what you take to be their benefit.) You're still depriving them of what is theirs by right: the choice.

People cannot be legitimately owned.

Freedom of expression is lovely, but some people take it too far, and other people are just woefully misinformed. Do they really merit a voice? No.

Freedom of expression is not fundamental; it's important to democracy, but it can be restricted.

Such as?

I'm sure you can think of a few. :rolleyes:

And what do you do when nobody else has your point of view on the electoral register? Sit about complaining ineffectually. That's about it.

True. You don't get to be dictator. Of course, you (almost certainly) don't get to be dictator in a dictatorship, either. At least a democracy offers you and others who share your concerns the capacity to participate.

On the other hand, it's also far easier for governments to cheer up the public. If you only need to sway public opinion positively once every couple of years, tops, then it's a lot easier to stay in power than a dictatorship which needs to keep its population reasonably cheery or be kicked out of power.

How do you figure that? Elections are a far easier method of government removal than revolutions, yet you think revolutions are more effective at holding governments accountable?

Are dictatorships incapable of swaying public opinion positively when dissent begins to rise? And all they need to do is raise it just positively enough to prevent the extreme case of revolution... which is a far lower bar to set.

That's my reason for "other" as there is just more than what is listed

Wait, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't figure under "fundamental rights"?

Isn't right of revolution an inherent right?

It's not something that can be effectively taken away so if a sufficiently large group thinks something is wrong or that wrong people are in power then kudos to them for starting up a revolution.

If a single person "rises up" against the government and tries to take over power, that is almost certainly going to lead to a gunfight which they'd obviously lose.

Even if they weren't so foolish as to try to take over the existing mechanisms of government, and decided instead to simply break any law they didn't like, they would very likely land in jail.

Both of those seem like pretty effective examples of the "right" being taken away.

So really this "right" depends on "a sufficiently large group." It's a collective right, then?

Wait, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't figure under "fundamental rights"?

I've always read it as a bit of inspirational nonsense, particularly "the pursuit of happiness." Every single decision an individual makes can be reduced to "pursuing happiness" and that justifies ANYTHING because it defines rights subjectively, from AN individual, not between all of them.

It gives the Declaration appeal (here, this document protects YOU, the reader) but isn't useful as a statement of rights, as you so easily demonstrated with examples.

Quote:Originally Posted by Sel Appa
Everyone has the right to revolt against the government for any reason.

Don't be stupid.


Nuff said. Perfectly done...

But the two are ultimately one and the same in terms of freedom. In the recognition that everyone, and not just you, is entitled to freedom, and that the fulfillment of this recognition must be the sovereignty of all, you can willingly accept the will of the public you participate in.
But that massively cuts on what a democratic body is actually able to do, doesn't it? There are many things that can't be put down to maximising freedom together. Really, every single decision rather than the process itself must be judged if you have such clear cut categories that tell you democracy is better than another process.

So let me ask you: are there good and bad democratic decisions?

Unfortunately, there are limits to human free will, and it stops somewhere around the point where we try to mess with human nature and the fundamental way human societies work. We don't all have our own planets to live on. We're not perfectly independent creatures with no social needs who can interact with others on automatically free terms.
Needs only form an issue when people start thinking it entitles them to stuff. Yes, if I "need" to feel like my friends like me, I'm constrained if I wanted to make the choice to do something bad to them. But that's the same if I wanted to make the choice to stop eating. Freedom doesn't mean to be removed from the world, it means being able to act on it as you perceive it and as you judge it. Not every choice presented to you due to your freedom is one you have to like.

But if you needed my acceptance, then that doesn't have any implications for me at all. So any unfreedom created by the social need is just on one side, just inside their heads and can't be resolved regardless of what system we come up with, no more than we can get around the fact that we need food to survive.

So of course we interact. We want to, we choose to, generally we have to. But those interactions are nonetheless choices, they're perfectly consistent with freedom. It's when the option to choose not to interact with someone is taken away that we have a problem. Democracy, since it integrates us into a network of chains that declares that virtually everything is everyone's business, severely diminishes the choice, to the point where we can either choose to interact with everyone or no one. I think most of us would be able to pick a subset of society that we want to interact with and wouldn't mind all that much if we never had to deal with anyone outside it. But to use a tired example: if I get taxed, then that's a deal with everyone in society. If I refuse to get taxed, it is wrong of me to still want to interact with some people in society, or so goes the argument against tax evasion.

No, we live in societies with scarcity, which means we must have means of dispute resolution, and interdependence, which means that "private" dispute resolution is doomed to be arbitrary and power-driven. There's no way around these facts. We can't magically wish them away.
It doesn't have to be private. It can be public in the way that it is accessible by everyone and therefore judges everyone the same way. I'm just not all that sure that the standards of judgement are in any way improved by letting everyone decide, nor am I convinced that their legitimacy would be improved as a result.

Yes, there is. Don't be disingenuous. What constitutes "individuality and private sphere"? Where does it end? Can I own a nuclear bomb? What if I say that my private sphere encompasses part of what you consider to be yours? What if your private sphere is such that I am denied the meaningful capacity for individual freedom? Since we're all individuals, should we expect to provide our own security, and enter an eternal arms race with everyone else?
But aren't these questions that can be answered objectively? Correctly? Isn't part of being a rationalist the position that these questions have a right answer, and that by using your noggin you can get it, regardless of whether you're just you or a bunch of others are with you?

Disputes can be settled by courts that are not up for public debate. And the ultimate standard can (indeed, usually does) consist of a constitution, and looking at some historical examples it doesn't seem like democratic approval thereof is a particularly good determinant on whether or not it's any good. The US constitution was and still is a pretty good document, and it was never voted on. I shudder to think what would happen if you let the public vote change it today.

The crucial insight here, suggested by Rousseau, is that if we really want to be free we have to be able to decide as a public on which resolution to adopt, and that means that we have to have democracy. Without that, some people are imposing their will upon others: society is still being chosen, but without the participation, and therefore without the freedom, of the full public.
So what if I were to choose that I don't want the result of a public vote? I mean, I know that 80%+ of people are idiots who wouldn't know what liberalism even means and wouldn't have a chance in hell to understand the argument you just made for why they should have a vote.

It seems a reasonable choice for me not to want my fate to be left up to those people to decide, but rather to a panel of experts, for example. However, that 80%+ wouldn't understand that argument either. Indeed, most of them would probably be quite offended once the gist of it made its way into their heads.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that the public can, and frequently is, wrong. By virtue of those 80%+ it even seems like it's predisposed to be wrong. If you don't think I should own a nuke, that is because you understand that there is an objectively wrong thing to do with it, and you don't want to rely on me knowing it too. The power to make rules by majority vote is the same. Taking either away is in one way reducing freedom, but in another increasing the "substantive" part.

That gets it exactly wrong. We can only begin to reject a collective decision-making process when we have objectified everybody else: when we have forgotten the need for joint freedom.
So why do people vote for a wealth tax, if not because they are using people they usually have never met and have no way of judging in any way whatsoever, as a tool to fill the public purse?

Many people vote with their own interests at heart. Some vote the way they do because they want to feel "the nation" or "the poor" are doing well, some because they want more cash in their own wallets. Regardless of who rightfully owns this money, they are clearly using the process of democracy as a means to get something they want from people who made that something, without having to give anything in return. And dismissing the obligation to give something back is to dismiss the other person's worth as a human being entitled to recognition for doing something well or right. You pay more respect to a vending machine.

What they've really done is made us all dictators, which really means that we are all slaves. But at least they realize that they aren't keeping the property system.
Oh, well that's okay then. ;)

No. I believe in democracy whether I lose or I win. A society where the people democratically reject every one of my proposals is better than one where I am dictator.
And if the majority votes for something that will destroy the environment and have serious negative impacts on you and many others in 20 years' time? There are bad decisions that you can't just answer by "oh, well, maybe next time".

In any case, I see no real indication that people are anywhere near as stupid as they're supposed to be. And the (in some respects profoundly undemocratic) way political campaigns are run today is not a necessary constant.
In a given society, any problem has an optimal policy response, doesn't it? That's part of being a rationalist and a moral absolutist to boot. So every time a democratically elected politician makes a sub-optimal choice, democracy itself has shown itself to suck at producing good policy. Whether you blame it on the process or the voters themselves, fact of the matter is that all the ingredients of a democracy are there right here, right now. People are free to participate in the process - it's just that they're producing bad outcomes. Sometimes quite consistently.

And that's not just in the US. Democracies that produce consistently good results are more a case of "Every dog has its day" than the rule.

Consider what the group of people who agree with you are actually doing. You're going with the less objectionable party--and that means that both parties have an incentive to be less objectionable to you. Of course, this incentive is countered by those who have opposing political views to yours, but that's democracy.
But I don't want the least bad option. I want the best one. What sort of philosophy tells me not to demand and strive for the best?

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of representative democracy, but if someone flagrantly violates campaign promises, they generally get into political trouble.
Unless they have some other issue which makes headlines instead. Chancellor Schröder had no mandate for his economic policies in Germany, no matter how successful they ended up turning out. He had a mandate for not going to Iraq, but once he was elected he could do what he wanted (and what was right).

Of course there was political trouble. He ended up calling an early election and lost it. But that doesn't change the fact that his policies were introduced and are still around, despite popular disagreement. Blair and Howard were both reelected despite staying in Iraq against popular opinion.

We have the freedom to participate, but not actually to decide. We have the ability to choose, but not actually between options we want. The only thing we don't have get a say in is if we actually want to suffer the consequences of whatever monkey does in the end. Yay, freedom.

That's probably because your concerns aren't shared. In a sense, it's an "invisible" vote--nobody talks about it because it doesn't appeal enough to anybody (most people).
Which clearly means it's not actually an issue. If everyone in the room said 2+2 is 5, and one guy says "4", would you go with the majority? Things don't become because people believe them. Things are, independent of our opinion.

Who themselves follow rules and are accountable to standards indirectly set in place by the public.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. They're accountable to an indeterminate papertrail that disappears into the distance, never to be looked at again.

Actually, no, because it's really our own failure, not the system's. Votes make a difference; it's just easier to see it from the collective angle than from the individual one.
But the vote only makes a difference as part of a large number of votes. The single vote is utterly worthless by itself. And if the vote is the voice of the individual, then that voice is useless. My correctness, my moral value and values, my exposure to the consequences of whatever decision is made...none of these are determinants. The only one is if enough people vote the same way.

That's not a matter of perspective, that's objectively true. And it's a problem.

Equality under law. I'm not an absolute majoritarian. Both of the examples you give are actually rather cut-and-dry as such matters go.
And if you're not an absolute majoritarian, then you have some other standard other than just "the public wanted it". Which means there are things that are objectively wrong for the public to want because they're simply beyond the scope of legitimate democratic rule, even if they involve externalities and social relations.

Which means that if I say "taxation is wrong", you can't answer simply by saying "no, the public voted for it" - we're back at square one.

It's not. Property rights over external objects are positive (not non-negative, but non-natural): their legitimacy is derived from collective freedom. But your autonomy as an individual is always the foundation of everything else.
And insofar as I want to be able to be autonomous without being subject to the judgement of everyone else, I require the ability to have a material existence that is not subject to others' approval, ie private property. I need a house, I need food, I need the knowledge that if I leave for two weeks I won't find people eating my porridge and sleeping in my bed when I come back, and from that it is reasonable to expand the house and put a few machines in it and not suddenly lose ownership of it.

So really, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that autonomy is necessary, I'm disagreeing with the idea that autonomy without property rights is possible. And that's why I don't see the difference between the bricks and the brains - they're both a part of the factory, they're both necessary but not sufficient inputs. Taking the brains from a guy by forcing him is wrong because he would want to be spending his resources differently because he judges the world differently from us. Taking his bricks is the same.

Edit: This thread has gotten decidedly off-topic. Oh, well.
I don't think so. The question on when it's right to revolt is necessarily connected with the question of when a government's rule is legitimate. Hell, the acknowledgement by many in the poll that sometimes it can be right to revolt against a democracy tells us that we're not really on that wrong a track.

Certain people, (John Locke) would say that it is the responsibility of the people to revolt and overthrow their government if they do not agree with the way they are being represented by/protected by/governed by their government.

I think that if traditional methods of "revolution" don't work, violent action is justifiable.

There are many things that can't be put down to maximising freedom together.

It's not a matter of "maximizing" freedom, it's a matter of expressing freedom. It's a matter of, to use the phrase you hate so much, choosing the kind of society we want to live in.

So let me ask you: are there good and bad democratic decisions?

There are democratic decisions that I agree with and democratic decisions I disagree with. But democratic decision-making is an end in itself, and it is ranked above concerns for results. Freedom is meaningless if it's only allowed when I (or any other specific individual) likes the consequences.

There are, however, procedural considerations--and in some respects these manifest themselves in concern for results. But this is really a sort of backwards reasoning: "Such results could only have occurred with these procedural violations."

As for "natural" rights... a case could be made for some of them (say, sovereignty over one's body), but not over the major issues most democratic societies are concerned with--certainly not over economic matters. All rights to property are positive.

Freedom doesn't mean to be removed from the world, it means being able to act on it as you perceive it and as you judge it. Not every choice presented to you due to your freedom is one you have to like.

Freedom without control of the context of that freedom is a false freedom. It's akin to the choice offered by the gunman: obey or die.

So any unfreedom created by the social need is just on one side, just inside their heads and can't be resolved regardless of what system we come up with, no more than we can get around the fact that we need food to survive.

We can resolve both. We can create a society where both can be fulfilled.

But those interactions are nonetheless choices, they're perfectly consistent with freedom.

No, they aren't. No more than the interaction between the slave and his master. Interaction is only free when it is not characterized by power. But we can only accomplish this in a context that abstracts from material differences and makes us equal: democracy.

But to use a tired example: if I get taxed, then that's a deal with everyone in society. If I refuse to get taxed, it is wrong of me to still want to interact with some people in society, or so goes the argument against tax evasion.

But you are always interacting with everyone in society (well, maybe not everyone, but nevertheless...). That's the nature of social living. Your decisions affect others.

You're demonstrating exactly the problem I tried to suggest to you: you want to have it both ways. You want to be free from other people restricting your freedom, but you don't want to be a hermit--you want to participate in society, to affect others with your actions. But one goes with the other. In a free society, they are and must be inseparable--because we cannot be free if we cannot participate in the decisions that control so much of the substantive content of our lives.

I'm just not all that sure that the standards of judgement are in any way improved by letting everyone decide, nor am I convinced that their legitimacy would be improved as a result.

The alternative is that an exclusive class of rulers decide. Or that some customary law that nobody can change, like it or not, does. It's not hard to see which is more consistent with freedom.

But aren't these questions that can be answered objectively? Correctly? Isn't part of being a rationalist the position that these questions have a right answer, and that by using your noggin you can get it, regardless of whether you're just you or a bunch of others are with you?

I love philosophy. My friend loves wrestling. Is one of us "right"? Is one of us "wrong"?

I take sexual liberalism to the extreme--I think people should be allowed to have public sex orgies if they like. I have more conservative friends who are repelled by the idea. Am I right? Are they wrong? Is there a way to decide, rationally?

I say no. Reason does not take us that far. We can learn rationally to disregard our own partiality, to look for rules we can accept universally. We can learn rationally to respect the autonomy of others, to grant them the freedom to make their own choices. But there is nothing in reason that can decide definitively in each particular case.

And all the better. What is freedom, if not the freedom to choose freely? What is freedom, if all it means is conforming to Soheran's (or anybody else's) idea of right? That is the real irrationality: the assumption that there is one right answer that all rational people must accept. (And if they don't, of course, we can force them to.)

Reason suggests to us just procedures, but not (specific) just results.

The US constitution was and still is a pretty good document, and it was never voted on.

Yes, it was. Not by universal suffrage, and not directly by the public, but it was ratified by elected conventions in the thirteen states.

Of course, the worthiness of the US Constitution as a political document (certainly in 1787) is open to serious question. The Bill of Rights were only tacked on afterwards, and that through the pressure of those who had opposed it... who tended to be more democratically-minded than the supporters. Amendments, of course, including the Bill of Rights, are passed by the elected houses of Congress and ratified by the elected state legislatures, so the massive and crucial improvements they have made to the Constitution surely count for the "democracy" side of things.

I shudder to think what would happen if you let the public vote change it today.

The public probably wouldn't change much.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that the public can, and frequently is, wrong. By virtue of those 80%+ it even seems like it's predisposed to be wrong.

I'm going to be careful here. I don't want to suggest that the public cannot be wrong. What I'm going to suggest instead is that it doesn't matter if it's wrong--"doesn't matter" in that its wrongness doesn't entitle you to violate its right to freedom.

Individuals are wrong, too. We make the wrong decisions--we do things that are stupid and we do things that are immoral. But that doesn't mean people have the right to take away our freedom. Freedom is the highest good, and while freedom exercised rightly is the truest freedom, we cannot coerce people into it. To do so is to render any freedom impossible.

So why do people vote for a wealth tax, if not because they are using people they usually have never met and have no way of judging in any way whatsoever, as a tool to fill the public purse?

So why do people vote against a wealth tax, if not because they are using people they usually have never met and have no way of judging in any way whatsoever, as a tool to put more money in their purse? ;)

To me, it's the same question. The free-market capitalist distribution of wealth has no intrinsic value; people do not have a right to its consequences. To modify them for the public good is not to use any person as a tool, because no person's rights have been violated.

Regardless of who rightfully owns this money,

You're assuming that somebody does. I deny this. There is no rightful owner until society has decided upon a system of distribution.

And dismissing the obligation to give something back is to dismiss the other person's worth as a human being entitled to recognition for doing something well or right. You pay more respect to a vending machine.

We have no right to take by force what belongs by right to someone else. Stealing is immoral.

But, again, there is no "right" to property prior to collective decision-making on the subject.

Oh, well that's okay then. ;)

I'm not being knee-jerk anti-capitalist here... well, not only. There's an important distinction: by limiting property to use rights (or similar formulations), the sort of anarchist tradition I'm talking about makes a real effort to achieve its end. The defense of use rights just doesn't involve the kind of abuse of private power anarcho-capitalism, or a capitalist dictatorship, would.

And if the majority votes for something that will destroy the environment and have serious negative impacts on you and many others in 20 years' time?

Then it does. So be it.

If it affects people who have no right to political participation (say, people in other countries), matters change somewhat. Civil disobedience can be justified.

In a given society, any problem has an optimal policy response, doesn't it? That's part of being a rationalist and a moral absolutist to boot.

No. I'm a believer in reason and I accept absolute moral standards, but the absolute moral standards I accept place procedures above consequences.

There may be absolute rules of right conduct, but value is always relative.

But I don't want the least bad option. I want the best one. What sort of philosophy tells me not to demand and strive for the best?

Then go out and argue. Strive to convince people. Run for office.

But seeking the political changes you seek by depriving other people of freedom is no more legitimate than acquiring wealth by enslaving people. In both cases, the ends may be legitimate. But they do not justify the means.

Of course there was political trouble. He ended up calling an early election and lost it. But that doesn't change the fact that his policies were introduced and are still around, despite popular disagreement.

What sort of "popular disagreement"? Is there majority opposition? Is the opposition intense? Why, then, did the party to Schroeder's right win the election?

Blair and Howard were both reelected despite staying in Iraq against popular opinion.

Coalition politics. Though having center-left or center-right politicians adopting the policies of the other party does mess things up somewhat. It's a good case for more flexible party systems.

We have the freedom to participate, but not actually to decide. We have the ability to choose, but not actually between options we want. The only thing we don't have get a say in is if we actually want to suffer the consequences of whatever monkey does in the end.

That's right. You don't get to rule.

Which clearly means it's not actually an issue. If everyone in the room said 2+2 is 5, and one guy says "4", would you go with the majority? Things don't become because people believe them. Things are, independent of our opinion.

Look, I'm rather firmly convinced that the conditions of the poor should be improved, even at the expense of the wealth of the rich... and the case for such a policy "is", independent of our opinion.

Does that give me the right to steal? Does that give me the right to go against the democratic will of the public and the individual will of the owner to hold some rich person at gunpoint and insist that he give his money away?

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

If anything, the opposite is true.

But the vote only makes a difference as part of a large number of votes. The single vote is utterly worthless by itself.

No, it isn't. It can't be. Zero times ten million is still zero.

My correctness, my moral value and values, my exposure to the consequences of whatever decision is made...none of these are determinants. The only one is if enough people vote the same way.

That's right. You don't get your way unless other people agree with you. I don't think this is a problem when it comes to dealing with the whole of society, and unfortunately there is no other way.

And if you're not an absolute majoritarian, then you have some other standard other than just "the public wanted it".

I've given it: equality under law. That's central to what it means to be a "public"--it strengthens democracy, it does not restrict it.

Which means that if I say "taxation is wrong", you can't answer simply by saying "no, the public voted for it" - we're back at square one.

Well, you can give an argument for why it's objectively wrong independent of the public will. It's just that I don't think there's a real case for making that argument with respect to property.

And insofar as I want to be able to be autonomous without being subject to the judgement of everyone else, I require the ability to have a material existence that is not subject to others' approval, ie private property. I need a house, I need food, I need the knowledge that if I leave for two weeks I won't find people eating my porridge and sleeping in my bed when I come back,

I quite agree. In fact, I value this sort of personal property so highly that I think that even people who don't get it in market capitalism are entitled to it. ;)

Perhaps you object to my argument that we need social legitimation for even this sort of property. But within the framework of equality under law, the public has every reason to support it--and if it doesn't, if there is some compelling value it sees in getting rid of everyone's sovereignty over their houses, then I'm willing to bite the bullet and say there's legitimacy to that.

But suddenly we're speaking in very different terms. What's such a compelling reason going to be like? Probably something truly extreme, like needing the resources for a war of survival. (Or maybe the reason's cultural. But in that case, do we really have a right to object to how the people in that society want to live? That doesn't sound like respecting freedom to me. Any dissatisfied person, of course, should be perfectly able to leave.)

and from that it is reasonable to expand the house and put a few machines in it and not suddenly lose ownership of it.

Not obviously so, and in any case you're trying to abolish the distinction by pointing out that it's blurry. That's not good enough; most worthy distinctions are.

Taking his bricks is the same.

Right. But you again assume that they're his bricks.

I don't think so. The question on when it's right to revolt is necessarily connected with the question of when a government's rule is legitimate.

Yes, everything in political theory is connected, but the right to revolution deals with a number of specific issues that my longer arguments with you and UniVERSEverse have largely neglected.

Oh, well. It's not really that big a deal.

It gives the Declaration appeal (here, this document protects YOU, the reader) but isn't useful as a statement of rights, as you so easily demonstrated with examples.

I was having fun. Jefferson was a smart guy. There's no point in expecting him to write a detailed work of theory in a political document like that one.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" echoes the Lockean formulation... with an improvement.

It's not a matter of "maximizing" freedom, it's a matter of expressing freedom. It's a matter of, to use the phrase you hate so much, choosing the kind of society we want to live in.



There are democratic decisions that I agree with and democratic decisions I disagree with. But democratic decision-making is an end in itself, and it is ranked above concerns for results. Freedom is meaningless if it's only allowed when I (or any other specific individual) likes the consequences.

There are, however, procedural considerations--and in some respects these manifest themselves in concern for results. But this is really a sort of backwards reasoning: "Such results could only have occurred with these procedural violations."

As for "natural" rights... a case could be made for some of them (say, sovereignty over one's body), but not over the major issues most democratic societies are concerned with--certainly not over economic matters. All rights to property are positive.



Freedom without control of the context of that freedom is a false freedom. It's akin to the choice offered by the gunman: obey or die.



We can resolve both. We can create a society where both can be fulfilled.



No, they aren't. No more than the interaction between the slave and his master. Interaction is only free when it is not characterized by power. But we can only accomplish this in a context that abstracts from material differences and makes us equal: democracy.



But you are always interacting with everyone in society (well, maybe not everyone, but nevertheless...). That's the nature of social living. Your decisions affect others.

You're demonstrating exactly the problem I tried to suggest to you: you want to have it both ways. You want to be free from other people restricting your freedom, but you don't want to be a hermit--you want to participate in society, to affect others with your actions. But one goes with the other. In a free society, they are and must be inseparable--because we cannot be free if we cannot participate in the decisions that control so much of the substantive content of our lives.



The alternative is that an exclusive class of rulers decide. Or that some customary law that nobody can change, like it or not, does. It's not hard to see which is more consistent with freedom.



I love philosophy. My friend loves wrestling. Is one of us "right"? Is one of us "wrong"?

I take sexual liberalism to the extreme--I think people should be allowed to have public sex orgies if they like. I have more conservative friends who are repelled by the idea. Am I right? Are they wrong? Is there a way to decide, rationally?

I say no. Reason does not take us that far. We can learn rationally to disregard our own partiality, to look for rules we can accept universally. We can learn rationally to respect the autonomy of others, to grant them the freedom to make their own choices. But there is nothing in reason that can decide definitively in each particular case.

And all the better. What is freedom, if not the freedom to choose freely? What is freedom, if all it means is conforming to Soheran's (or anybody else's) idea of right? That is the real irrationality: the assumption that there is one right answer that all rational people must accept. (And if they don't, of course, we can force them to.)

Reason suggests to us just procedures, but not (specific) just results.



Yes, it was. Not by universal suffrage, and not directly by the public, but it was ratified by elected conventions in the thirteen states.

Of course, the worthiness of the US Constitution as a political document (certainly in 1787) is open to serious question. The Bill of Rights were only tacked on afterwards, and that through the pressure of those who had opposed it... who tended to be more democratically-minded than the supporters. Amendments, of course, including the Bill of Rights, are passed by the elected houses of Congress and ratified by the elected state legislatures, so the massive and crucial improvements they have made to the Constitution surely count for the "democracy" side of things.



The public probably wouldn't change much.



I'm going to be careful here. I don't want to suggest that the public cannot be wrong. What I'm going to suggest instead is that it doesn't matter if it's wrong--"doesn't matter" in that its wrongness doesn't entitle you to violate its right to freedom.

Individuals are wrong, too. We make the wrong decisions--we do things that are stupid and we do things that are immoral. But that doesn't mean people have the right to take away our freedom. Freedom is the highest good, and while freedom exercised rightly is the truest freedom, we cannot coerce people into it. To do so is to render any freedom impossible.



So why do people vote against a wealth tax, if not because they are using people they usually have never met and have no way of judging in any way whatsoever, as a tool to put more money in their purse? ;)

To me, it's the same question. The free-market capitalist distribution of wealth has no intrinsic value; people do not have a right to its consequences. To modify them for the public good is not to use any person as a tool, because no person's rights have been violated.



You're assuming that somebody does. I deny this. There is no rightful owner until society has decided upon a system of distribution.



We have no right to take by force what belongs by right to someone else. Stealing is immoral.

But, again, there is no "right" to property prior to collective decision-making on the subject.



I'm not being knee-jerk anti-capitalist here... well, not only. There's an important distinction: by limiting property to use rights (or similar formulations), the sort of anarchist tradition I'm talking about makes a real effort to achieve its end. The defense of use rights just doesn't involve the kind of abuse of private power anarcho-capitalism, or a capitalist dictatorship, would.



Then it does. So be it.

If it affects people who have no right to political participation (say, people in other countries), matters change somewhat. Civil disobedience can be justified.



No. I'm a believer in reason and I accept absolute moral standards, but the absolute moral standards I accept place procedures above consequences.

There may be absolute rules of right conduct, but value is always relative.



Then go out and argue. Strive to convince people. Run for office.

But seeking the political changes you seek by depriving other people of freedom is no more legitimate than acquiring wealth by enslaving people. In both cases, the ends may be legitimate. But they do not justify the means.



What sort of "popular disagreement"? Is there majority opposition? Is the opposition intense? Why, then, did the party to Schroeder's right win the election?



Coalition politics. Though having center-left or center-right politicians adopting the policies of the other party does mess things up somewhat. It's a good case for more flexible party systems.



That's right. You don't get to rule.



Look, I'm rather firmly convinced that the conditions of the poor should be improved, even at the expense of the wealth of the rich... and the case for such a policy "is", independent of our opinion.

Does that give me the right to steal? Does that give me the right to go against the democratic will of the public and the individual will of the owner to hold some rich person at gunpoint and insist that he give his money away?



If anything, the opposite is true.



No, it isn't. It can't be. Zero times ten million is still zero.



That's right. You don't get your way unless other people agree with you. I don't think this is a problem when it comes to dealing with the whole of society, and unfortunately there is no other way.



I've given it: equality under law. That's central to what it means to be a "public"--it strengthens democracy, it does not restrict it.



Well, you can give an argument for why it's objectively wrong independent of the public will. It's just that I don't think there's a real case for making that argument with respect to property.



I quite agree. In fact, I value this sort of personal property so highly that I think that even people who don't get it in market capitalism are entitled to it. ;)

Perhaps you object to my argument that we need social legitimation for even this sort of property. But within the framework of equality under law, the public has every reason to support it--and if it doesn't, if there is some compelling value it sees in getting rid of everyone's sovereignty over their houses, then I'm willing to bite the bullet and say there's legitimacy to that.

But suddenly we're speaking in very different terms. What's such a compelling reason going to be like? Probably something truly extreme, like needing the resources for a war of survival. (Or maybe the reason's cultural. But in that case, do we really have a right to object to how the people in that society want to live? That doesn't sound like respecting freedom to me. Any dissatisfied person, of course, should be perfectly able to leave.)



Not obviously so, and in any case you're trying to abolish the distinction by pointing out that it's blurry. That's not good enough; most worthy distinctions are.



Right. But you again assume that they're his bricks.



Yes, everything in political theory is connected, but the right to revolution deals with a number of specific issues that my longer arguments with you and UniVERSEverse have largely neglected.

Oh, well. It's not really that big a deal.



I was having fun. Jefferson was a smart guy. There's no point in expecting him to write a detailed work of theory in a political document like that one.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" echoes the Lockean formulation... with a crucial improvement.


I like the way your argument has turned out, Soheran. Specially that bit of choosing the type of society you want to live in. Kudos!

By their definitions. Assuming their conceptions of property. And how do they enforce their property rights? With force.

A dictator can make the same claim by the same reasoning.



That's what they say. They only say so because they assume a private property default.

That doesn't back up your initial statement.

That doesn't back up your initial statement.

Yes, it does. If you have organized bodies of people with guns enforcing the rules you set, that's government.

The most you can claim for it is that it's non-monopolistic (in theory), but if what is desired is a society where human relations are not regulated by coercive enforcement, it fails miserably.

All government is the assertion of one interest and the repression of another contradictive interest.

I like the way your argument has turned out, Soheran. Specially that bit of choosing the type of society you want to live in. Kudos!

Would you mind using a *snip* or two when quoting such a long post?

All government is the assertion of one interest and the repression of another contradictive interest.

That seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

Let us suppose a government provides free primary-school education to the citizens. This IS governing, it's an act of government. It "asserts one interest" be that a base of common knowledge which unifies society, or a base of knowledge to allow for more specialized work skills ... in fact, it clearly asserts more than one interest to do that.

Now, the contradictive interest is ...?

That seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

Let us suppose a government provides free primary-school education to the citizens. This IS governing, it's an act of government. It "asserts one interest" be that a base of common knowledge which unifies society, or a base of knowledge to allow for more specialized work skills ... in fact, it clearly asserts more than one interest to do that.

Now, the contradictive interest is ...?

The overall underlying contradiction however remains, for example governments can put foward socially-progressive legislation yet this is only meant to preserve capitalist society through placation. To elaborate I will quote from the collected works of Josef Stalin:

The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R. The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old destroyed economic basis an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created.

Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its bad features, restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society. That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganization of society.

The overall underlying contradiction however remains, for example governments can put foward socially-progressive legislation yet this is only meant to preserve capitalist society through placation. To elaborate I will quote from the collected works of Josef Stalin:



OK, you won't answer but wave Uncle Joe at me instead.

How do you feel about government building infrastructure? Laying train tracks, building ports or freeways or powerstations?

I mean, suppose for a minute that they do that without private investment, right out of the treasury, and they do not sell the completed infrastructure. They employ workers directly to do those things and to operate the ports or power-stations.

Would you be in favour of that if it was done by a modern liberal democratic government? Or is it only OK in a context of total public ownership ?

If a single person "rises up" against the government and tries to take over power, that is almost certainly going to lead to a gunfight which they'd obviously lose.

Even if they weren't so foolish as to try to take over the existing mechanisms of government, and decided instead to simply break any law they didn't like, they would very likely land in jail.

Both of those seem like pretty effective examples of the "right" being taken away.

Are you saying that only successful revolution can be called revolution?

Let's take your example of breaking a law: Every individual can break the law, generally there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from breaking, or at least trying to break, the law - They would still, quite likely, face consequences of their actions but that would only be after the 'revolutionary act'.

So really this "right" depends on "a sufficiently large group." It's a collective right, then?

Well, revolution usually carries with it the idea of bigger group fighting against the current rulership.

Individuals and smaller groups are usually limited to civil disobedience and/or status of outlaws.

I like the way your argument has turned out, Soheran. Specially that bit of choosing the type of society you want to live in. Kudos!
But doesn't the very post you quoted read that we don't actually have that choice, but that we merely have the right to participate in the process that chooses?

Am I the only one who sees the difference here?

As for the answer to it, I'll get to it tomorrow. I'm researching how chemo therapy works on dogs for all the wrong reasons. :(

well i don't believe people have a right to go arround beating each other over the head. not for political excuses any more then any other.

but i see people as having more right to live their own lives however they believe in living them (that doesn't involve denying that same right to each other) then any such concept as soverignty has even to exist in the first place.

but what is a right? its a word that people use and argue over.

we arn't born with political rights, but then we arn't born with idiological alligiences either.

the burden of the question lies with the hierarchy, not with the individuals it is imposed upon. that's the underlying principal of the concept of constitutional governance.

=^^=
.../\...

How do you feel about government building infrastructure? Laying train tracks, building ports or freeways or powerstations?

I mean, suppose for a minute that they do that without private investment, right out of the treasury, and they do not sell the completed infrastructure. They employ workers directly to do those things and to operate the ports or power-stations.

Would you be in favour of that if it was done by a modern liberal democratic government? Or is it only OK in a context of total public ownership ?How long till they privatize it?

I'm not voting, because I think the terms of the poll are overly vague (What is "undemocratic"? Does the de facto oligarchy of the United States count?); but more importantly because I don't think you can separate the problem of means and ends.

In other words, I think MOST of the options would justify some kind of revolution (with the exception, perhaps, of "takes people's stuff" interpreted broadly to prohibit nationalizing the means of production)... but very few (perhaps only "government murders its own people") would justify bloody civil war. I'll admit exceptions where a vast majority of the population supports the revolution: my basic ethical/political objection to violent revolution is that I find it hard to maintain the revolutionary's right to drag the rest of the country through years of shit in order to establish what he/she thinks is a better life. Fuck the vanguard.

"The government murders its own people" as a justification for revolution may, with some tweaking, extend to "the government seriously neglects its own people"... so that violent revolution against a government that allows millions to starve or die of neglect is not, on my view, unthinkable. Ultimately, I think the principle that a government providing basic safety and stability should not be overthrown deserves a great deal of consideration. There are (usually) opportunities for reform and revolution (and I'll go along with Marx for the moment and suppose that reform IS the basis for revolution) short of violent conflict.

Most certainly, AnarchyeL. Different abuses require different forms of responses, always proportional to the abuse, and always consistent with the end desired. If the revolutionaries become as bad or worse than the establishment, then their revolution would lose its legitimacy, at least in my opinion.

This is a very complicated issue, and I don't think we'll ever find a completely satisfactory answer to this.

That's theirs to determine, not yours. If that's a price they're willing to pay, why should anyone stop them?
Because the peasants are wrong and the experts are right?
It doesn't matter if you deprive someone of freedom for their benefit (or what you take to be their benefit.) You're still depriving them of what is theirs by right: the choice.
Choice is not a fundamental right. It's artificial at its best, and positively detrimental at its worst.
People cannot be legitimately owned.
Quite correct. However, they can, and should, be guided towards that which is to their benefit. This is the fundamental reason for education, after all.
Freedom of expression is not fundamental; it's important to democracy, but it can be restricted.
Yes, exactly.
I'm sure you can think of a few. :rolleyes:
Aye, protesting in pointless rallies and writing pointless petitions. Spiff.
True. You don't get to be dictator. Of course, you (almost certainly) don't get to be dictator in a dictatorship, either. At least a democracy offers you and others who share your concerns the capacity to participate.
Not really. I can no more realistically participate in a democratic state as any kind of force than I can in a dictatorial state. The majority parties will win, time after time after time after time, and that's just the way it is.
How do you figure that?
Because one can call early elections when one's popularity is high, see Thatcher in 1982/3, and one can also cripple the opposition electorally, see her role in 1987, when she dissolved Ken Livingston's constituency in London. Total pisstake.
Elections are a far easier method of government removal than revolutions, yet you think revolutions are more effective at holding governments accountable?
Depends if you want more of the same in power or not.
Are dictatorships incapable of swaying public opinion positively when dissent begins to rise? And all they need to do is raise it just positively enough to prevent the extreme case of revolution... which is a far lower bar to set.
Do dictatorships need to keep a basic threshold of cheeriness at all times? Yes.

Do democracies? No, not really. Every four or five years is about the only time it matters.

Because the peasants are wrong and the experts are right?

That's not good enough, but even if it were, by what standard do you say that?

Do you think it impossible that any people could value freedom in family size over the economic benefits you point to? (Especially considering that a whole variety of other measures might have accomplished similar ends?)

Quite correct. However, they can, and should, be guided towards that which is to their benefit. This is the fundamental reason for education, after all.

You can present information to people. You can attempt to sway them rationally. That's not forcing them.

Aye, protesting in pointless rallies and writing pointless petitions.

Or maybe elections.

Not really. I can no more realistically participate in a democratic state as any kind of force than I can in a dictatorial state.

Not you personally, no. But the public can. And even if your only concern is your own welfare, democracy still offers power to the groups into which you fall... while a dictatorship only offers power to the ruler and the political elite surrounding him.

Because one can call early elections when one's popularity is high, see Thatcher in 1982/3, and one can also cripple the opposition electorally, see her role in 1987, when she dissolved Ken Livingston's constituency in London.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The fact that politicians, especially skilled ones, can manipulate the means of public accountability doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally accountable to the public.

Do dictatorships need to keep a basic threshold of cheeriness at all times? Yes.

Let's not forget that this "basic threshold" is "just enough to stop the public from overthrowing us extra-legally"....

Do democracies? No, not really. Every four or five years is about the only time it matters.

Not only do you completely ignore issues of degree (the "threshold" for a democracy is much higher), but you also imagine that for some reason the public is so utterly forgetful that the government need not keep up any appearance of competence and justice in between elections.

Especially when you assume enough public interest to keep a dictatorship accountable, that's absurd.

I think governmental authority can only be justified when it arises through rather than against the freedom of the people.Nonsense. Government authority exists always both through and against the liberty of the people. There is no "rather than."

Without that condition, it is simply the imposition of power by some against others.It's always THAT. But you're missing all the interesting details in abstraction: imposition by whom and for what purpose(s)?

It does not represent any genuinely common authority, but simply exclusive rule through raw force--chaos institutionalized.A false dilemma and/or question-begging. Does undemocratic government rule through raw force? Sometimes, but clearly not always. Indeed, I tend to think Arendt was on to something in distinguishing "power" and "force" as being in polar opposition: you only need force where you don't have any power.

Thus, it is always legitimate to revolt against an undemocratic government, because such a government cannot be a legitimate source of political obligation in the first place."Always"? Is it legitimate to revolt against undemocratic government even under circumstances in which no democracy could flourish? Is it legitimate to oust a ruler and to declare democratic rule where no democratic movement has gained ground, organically, in the course of history? Is it legitimate to overthrow undemocratic government simply to throw all of us into the chaos and brutality of civil war... when the prospects for victory (in the sense of successfully installing democracy) are slim?

Democracy is a culture more than a set of institutions. Where you have no democratic culture democratic institutions cannot survive. Under such circumstances, "democratic revolution" would amount to mindless bloodshed. It's a childish sentiment, really, this romantic notion of noble revolutionaries overturning the world. Movements do that: movements which may or may not become revolutionary, but which generally build themselves on the basis of reforms--and by the time reforms such as free speech and civil rights are in place, the revolution happens over night. Just look at the fall of the U.S.S.R.

Its laws are enslaving,Question-begging. Are its laws enslaving? Even if they are the same laws that a democratic government would enforce?

...their enforcement aggression,Isn't all enforcement aggression? We can't pretend it's any less ugly when we happen to think it serves a good cause. It's always ugly.

...and the people are entitled to overthrow such a government in self-defense.More question-begging. What people? May I as an individual revolt against undemocratic government? What about my chess club? My university? The city in which I live? My state? Or do I already need a democratic sentiment (achieved, one presumes, through pre-revolutionary reforms), a public space, in order to claim democratic legitimacy?

What if a majority of citizens favor the kingship? Does the monarchy have democratic legitimacy, or not?

Are you saying that only successful revolution can be called revolution?

No, I think I wasn't saying that. The idea has merit though.

I think I was curious about what kind of right it is, which doesn't exist for an individual. There isn't even an equivalent right, other than the rather nonsensical "right" to do whatever you want and take the consequences.

Let's take your example of breaking a law: Every individual can break the law, generally there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from breaking, or at least trying to break, the law - They would still, quite likely, face consequences of their actions but that would only be after the 'revolutionary act'.

Well, I think quite a bit of lawbreaking is just an expression of individual rebellion against 'society.' That person feels oppressed by laws, as though the laws are only there to limit their vaguely-defined 'freedom.' For them, that is not compensated by the freedom Soheran is speaking of, a freedom-from being harmed themselves.

For such a "revolutionary" lawbreaker, having accomplished their revolutionary "act" may well be sufficiently gratifying to make it worthwhile despite the punishment. If no revolution occurs (actual change in the law in this case) then I would say that that person is just deluded, they're playing at being a revolutionary.

Well, revolution usually carries with it the idea of bigger group fighting against the current rulership.

Individuals and smaller groups are usually limited to civil disobedience and/or status of outlaws.

Perhaps I just can't imagine being a part of such an overwhelming majority that We would take power bloodlessly. I wouldn't want to be part of a minority which depended on winning over the military to our side, or having a foreign military intervene. I only ever imagine being part of a minority, and a small one at that ... because ... I don't know? I just think like that.

I voted "never" but I'm thinking now that that's kind of silly. I really meant "revolution is never justified by a principle, it's always an expediency. I can't say until the possibility is imminent and I'm involved." To that I'd add: revolutions may be justified in hindsight, but how could that be the point of the thread?

Civil disobedience is great. People always have the right to withhold their labour or their lives (eg Conscientious Objection.) I have a sneaking respect for outlaws, too, but I probably can't justify that ;)

A false dilemma and/or question-begging. Does undemocratic government rule through raw force? Sometimes, but clearly not always. Indeed, I tend to think Arendt was on to something in distinguishing "power" and "force" as being in polar opposition: you only need force where you don't have any power.

That may be, but I don't see how it alters the question of revolution... perhaps a truly powerful undemocratic government would generate citizens who do not have any inclination to revolt at all, but then revolution is excluded not by principle, but by circumstance.

"Always"? Is it legitimate to revolt against undemocratic government even under circumstances in which no democracy could flourish? Is it legitimate to oust a ruler and to declare democratic rule where no democratic movement has gained ground, organically, in the course of history? Is it legitimate to overthrow undemocratic government simply to throw all of us into the chaos and brutality of civil war... when the prospects for victory (in the sense of successfully installing democracy) are slim?

Of course not, and I didn't mean to suggest it was. My point was one of principle, not of practice--ends, not means. The "always" refers to the fact that every undemocratic government is illegitimate: they are illegitimate regardless of whether or not they are particularly abusive. They don't lead to the kind of political obligation we might have to a democratic government, that we should avoid overthrowing even if we can do so cleanly and effectively, without bloodshed and without civil disorder.

Any revolution whatsoever is subject to considerations of proportionality and efficacy. Revolutions to bring democracy don't get excused from meeting that standard. The people are always entitled to overthrow the government (that is to say, their right does not depend on particular government abuses), but they are not entitled to do it by each and every available means.

Democracy is a culture more than a set of institutions. Where you have no democratic culture democratic institutions cannot survive. Under such circumstances, "democratic revolution" would amount to mindless bloodshed.

Yes, it would. In fact, it wouldn't be "democratic revolution" at all. Yootopia already brought this up, and my answer remains the same: if democracy is impossible (or not yet possible), no revolution to bring it about can be justified because the end cannot be achieved.

Question-begging. Are its laws enslaving? Even if they are the same laws that a democratic government would enforce?

Yes. The equivalence is superficial: in one case the laws enforced are the people's own laws, and in the other case they are the laws of the ruler. Any coincidence in content doesn't change the difference in character.

Isn't all enforcement aggression?

No. Not when we can say those enforced against have in a sense consented to or participated in making the laws that are enforced against them.

More question-begging. What people? May I as an individual revolt against undemocratic government? What about my chess club? My university? The city in which I live? My state?

Depends on who can bring it about successfully, and with a minimum of bloodshed. Individuals or small groups have played major roles in bringing about democracy before. I'm not about to object on principle, assuming such players confine themselves to bringing about democracy, and cede their powers to the democratic institutions once established. It's a dangerous thing, though... far from the best method.

Or do I already need a democratic sentiment (achieved, one presumes, through pre-revolutionary reforms), a public space, in order to claim democratic legitimacy?

In theory, no. In practice, probably yes, insofar as that forms a condition for the successful achievement of democracy.

What if a majority of citizens favor the kingship? Does the monarchy have democratic legitimacy, or not?

I'll admit an exception in this case. It doesn't, because the public lacks the institutional capacity to remove the kingship if they so choose. But it can't be legitimately revolted against despite that, because to overthrow the government is necessarily to act against democracy.

That may be, but I don't see how it alters the question of revolution... perhaps a truly powerful undemocratic government would generate citizens who do not have any inclination to revolt at all, but then revolution is excluded not by principle, but by circumstance.Who said anything about "generating" citizens who "have no inclination" to revolt? I'm talking about citizens who recognize an undemocratic government as legitimate.

Allow me to read between your lines: you think either that a) this is impossible; or b) such citizens would in some important sense be "irrational" or "wrong." But I think the case to prove here is yours: I find it perfectly reasonable and rational to recognize the authority of, say, the party that maintains peace and stability among disagreeable factions. I might prefer democratic rule, but I find democracy itself neither necessary nor sufficient to confer legitimacy on a peaceful, moderate ruler.

Of course not, and I didn't mean to suggest it was. My point was one of principle, not of practice--ends, not means. The "always" refers to the fact that every undemocratic government is illegitimate: they are illegitimate regardless of whether or not they are particularly abusive.There's a circular argument hiding here, I think. At the very least, there is certainly an undue reliance on absolutes: why so insistent that a government is either "legitimate" or "illegitimate," with nothing in between? This is a dangerous political argument: it flattens critique of both democratic and undemocratic regimes.

They don't lead to the kind of political obligation we might have to a democratic government,I agree wholeheartedly. But that only means that there are, as you suggest, different "kinds" of political obligation--not that one is either obliged, or not.

Yes. The equivalence is superficial: in one case the laws enforced are the people's own laws, and in the other case they are the laws of the ruler.Many would argue, and not without some merit, that this is the truly superficial distinction: what matters in material terms are the rules governing my life, not so much how they got there. You're begging the question: why should I be more concerned with ideals than with material reality?

Any coincidence in content doesn't change the difference in character.No, it doesn't. But you pretend that the content itself confers NO legitimacy--that, in effect, I cannot compare two laws and decide that one is better than another... UNLESS I know who wrote them. But that's facially absurd.

My point is only that BOTH matter.

No. Not when we can say those enforced against have in a sense consented to or participated in making the laws that are enforced against them.We've wrangled over this distinction before. "Consent" does not equal "will." Consent is possible in an undemocratic regime; will is not. I maintain that consent confers some legitimacy... often more than enough.

Individuals or small groups have played major roles in bringing about democracy before.Not without a movement. Find an example if you can.

In theory, no. In practice, probably yes, insofar as that forms a condition for the successful achievement of democracy.What is a theory that has no praxis? Not a theory at all, but mere "philosophy."

Who said anything about "generating" citizens who "have no inclination" to revolt? I'm talking about citizens who recognize an undemocratic government as legitimate.

Is that necessarily an exercise of power at all?

But I think the case to prove here is yours: I find it perfectly reasonable and rational to recognize the authority of, say, the party that maintains peace and stability among disagreeable factions.

As the "least bad" of the alternatives, maybe, such that I wouldn't try to revolt and make things better in a society where things cannot be better, but even then it's questionable at best whether I could accept its enforcement of laws as legitimate.

There's a circular argument hiding here, I think. At the very least, there is certainly an undue reliance on absolutes: why so insistent that a government is either "legitimate" or "illegitimate," with nothing in between? This is a dangerous political argument: it flattens critique of both democratic and undemocratic regimes.

When did I suggest that? I have suggested a standard for legitimacy, but I have never said that governments are neatly grouped only at both ends of the spectrum: "perfect" democracies or "perfect" dictatorships ("undemocracies"). That is obviously not the case.

I agree wholeheartedly. But that only means that there are, as you suggest, different "kinds" of political obligation--not that one is either obliged, or not.

The content of obligation to an undemocratic regime isn't really "political." I'm bound by the same basic principle I am in all my actions: I must not callously disregard other people's lives and welfare. Such an obligation may protect such a government, but it does so incidentally: means, not ends.

That's true with respect to democratic revolution, anyway. Otherwise, with respect to obeying laws, a good case could be made for acceding to at least the more reasonable ones on grounds of preventing social chaos: common bad rules are generally better than no common rules at all, so I cannot will universally that people disregard them when convenient. But the same is not true with respect to democratic revolution: I can accept this in the case of others as well as in my own, as long as I admit of considerations of proportionality and efficacy.

Many would argue, and not without some merit, that this is the truly superficial distinction: what matters in material terms are the rules governing my life, not so much how they got there. You're begging the question: why should I be more concerned with ideals than with material reality?

Because I must always be concerned with freedom, both for myself and for others, and freedom is procedural: a government that disregards freedom may produce good results, but that is not good enough.

No, it doesn't. But you pretend that the content itself confers NO legitimacy--that, in effect, I cannot compare two laws and decide that one is better than another... UNLESS I know who wrote them.

I pretend nothing of the sort. Of course I can decide which is better. But that is not the same as deciding which is more legitimate.

If a dictatorship guaranteed its citizens decent universal health care, I could say with justification that its law, in that respect, is better than that of the US. But that changes political right on neither end. It doesn't make the dictatorship's denial of political freedom any more acceptable, and it doesn't mean I am entitled to make myself dictator and change the law here. Even benevolent tyranny is not justified.

We've wrangled over this distinction before. "Consent" does not equal "will." Consent is possible in an undemocratic regime; will is not. I maintain that consent confers some legitimacy... often more than enough.

I don't buy this any more than I did then. I draw a line and decree that I will shoot anyone who crosses it; someone does, I do. Did that person "consent" in any morally relevant sense?

This argument is like that of opponents of abortion rights who insist that a woman automatically "consents" to pregnancy by having sex. It's only a necessary consequence at all if anti-abortion laws have already been imposed, and in that case you have to justify the imposition first, and only then talk about consent.

Same here: you can claim that the criminal "consents" to the enforcement of laws against her only if you can justify ruling over her in the first place. But what right do you have? Convenience? That is no right at all. You are obliged to grant her freedom the same respect you grant your own, and within society that is only possible in the context of equal political freedom: democracy.

I can accept this, with some difficulty, through an argument from necessity about the cases on the margins: the foreigner who adamantly refuses to participate. But to go so far as to legitimate a whole regime on this reasoning seems to carry that idea far beyond its natural limits.

At best, we have a justification that is something like the justification for war: in this world right now, we can do no better. But that suggests that we can only accept an undemocratic regime in the most provisional sense, and that we must always be working to create a society where democracy is possible, to get ourselves out of a condition where injustice is a necessary rule. It does not suggest that we can ever accept such a state as truly legitimate.

And even that's questionable insofar as war can be justified in life and death terms: we act to protect our own lives and physical integrity, or those of others. Not to enforce rules we set.

What is a theory that has no praxis? Not a theory at all, but mere "philosophy."

The distinction between a judgment of efficacy and a judgment of principle is important in at least two respects. First, a judgment of efficacy is always subject to circumstance: I can say "This tactic will very rarely be effective", but "very rarely" is not the same thing as "never." Second, when it comes to other cases, it helps to know the justification for the rule in considering applicability: granting principled legitimacy to an undemocratic government ruling over a society without "democratic sentiment" has very different implications for, say, violating the law in general.

Considering extreme, ridiculously unlikely cases is always practically useless in an immediate sense, but that doesn't mean that it's useless for thinking about principles with broader applications.

IMO a revolution is neccessary if the majority opposes a good portion of what the government does, but is unable to change it democratically.

Course, if things arent looking too bad for you (ie you have electricity, cell phone, tv, computer, comfortable living style) you can just let it slide. Its up to the peasants, really. Let them deal with it.

...Course, if things arent looking too bad for you (ie you have electricity, cell phone, tv, computer, comfortable living style) you can just let it slide. Its up to the peasants, really. Let them deal with it.

Sheesh, that won't work. They have home-made beer and suckling pigs. :p

Probably wouldnt be in the top 100 percent of answers on Family Fued, but if Suckling pigs is your idea of a comfortable lifestyle, and you have it, dont fuck with the government.

Probably wouldnt be in the top 100 percent of answers on Family Fued, but if Suckling pigs is your idea of a comfortable lifestyle, and you have it, dont fuck with the government.

The few times I have watched Family Feud (what a silly name) I am proud to say that very few of the answers I came up with were on the board at all. :D Also, the contestants always seemed to be obese and to have terrible fashion-sense. Why is that?

Depends on what version you watch I suppose. If you're always watching the Dawson era ones, you are probably a peasant and should revolt immediately.

Is that necessarily an exercise of power at all?No. Why should it be?

As the "least bad" of the alternatives, maybe, such that I wouldn't try to revolt and make things better in a society where things cannot be better, but even then it's questionable at best whether I could accept its enforcement of laws as legitimate.Okay. But you're not giving any reason. You're just stating and restating a criterion: government, for you, is only legitimate to the extent that the people rule themselves--and it stinks of circularity to conclude thereby that only democratic governments are legitimate, because what you've offered as a criterion is essentially a definition of democracy. Worse, what's missing is an argument for why self-rule should be not only an important criterion, but the only criterion. Why not security? Why not mere consent?

When did I suggest that? I have suggested a standard for legitimacy, but I have never said that governments are neatly grouped only at both ends of the spectrum: "perfect" democracies or "perfect" dictatorships ("undemocracies"). That is obviously not the case.My concern was not with the extremity of your judgments but with the linearity of your model: legitimate governments (democracies) on one end and illegitimate governments (non-democracies) on the other. It's the definition of one-dimensional. It flattens critique.

The content of obligation to an undemocratic regime isn't really "political."It's precisely political. What it's not is ethical, and that's where your problem lies. You want to subsume politics under ethics, but it won't fit.

I'm bound by the same basic principle I am in all my actions: I must not callously disregard other people's lives and welfare.That's your ethical obligation to other people. Your analysis still lacks politics.

Otherwise, with respect to obeying laws, a good case could be made for acceding to at least the more reasonable ones on grounds of preventing social chaos: common bad rules are generally better than no common rules at all, so I cannot will universally that people disregard them when convenient.It goes deeper than that.

If I live in a moderately safe, moderately liberal but non-democratic society and we are invaded, I have a political obligation to defend the state. My obligation here is not to any particular individual or individuals, but to the functions, institutions, customs, land, culture, laws and symbols that hold us together as a people.

Your highly abstracted opinion wants to ignore these things or pretend that they are "mere" illusion to the truth of your deduction. But this myopic projection of Western (perhaps even "male") logic is at the heart of our misunderstanding of the Middle East. American liberals, for all their condemnation of Bush lies, distortions, and miscalculations, remain perplexed at the fact that the Iraqi people simply won't lay down their arms and accept democracy: it seems like the rational choice at this point; perhaps it even seems like the ethical choice. But the heart of politics is identity, and we merely blind ourselves to ignore it.

Political legitimacy is rooted in culture, not reason.

I pretend nothing of the sort. Of course I can decide which is better. But that is not the same as deciding which is more legitimate.Then your distinction ("better" or "worse") is practically meaningless, because if it bears no relation to legitimacy then it does not map onto the practical categories "more obliging" and "less obliging."

If a dictatorship guaranteed its citizens decent universal health care, I could say with justification that its law, in that respect, is better than that of the US.Yes, but you would also say that no one under the dictatorship should be obliged to pay taxes to fund universal health care; that hospitals need not obey mandated procedures; and so on, because none of these laws would have any legitimacy. According to you.

It doesn't make the dictatorship's denial of political freedom any more acceptable,No, but politics is not built on freedom alone. Political freedom is only one criterion by which to judge a regime (albeit an important one), and it must be judged in the historical context and the culture of the people in question.

Even benevolent tyranny is not justified.You're asking the question from the wrong side: the practical question is not "should I establish a benevolent dictatorship ["tyranny" is even MORE loaded, so let's avoid it]? The practical question is, "given that I live under a benevolent dictator, what obligations do I owe her [regime]?"

There is an implied non sequitur: no dictatorship is justified; therefore no one is obliged to obey a dictator. Does not follow. Or if it does, then none of us owe obedience to ANY modern regime, since every polity has its origins in injustice: pushing some other people off the land, forcing the dissenters to submit.

I don't buy this any more than I did then. I draw a line and decree that I will shoot anyone who crosses it; someone does, I do. Did that person "consent" in any morally relevant sense?Why would he? He's a silly little straw man.

While everybody draws arbitrary lines and shoots at each other, I prove myself to be a quick draw and a crack shot. I suggest that, rather than shooting each other all the time, everyone should bring their line disputes to me and promise to abide by my decisions; they must also recognize my authority to shoot anyone who violates the compact. Seeing the wisdom in this, everyone agrees.

That's consent, but it ain't no democracy.

This argument is like that of opponents of abortion rights who insist that a woman automatically "consents" to pregnancy by having sex.Another straw man! Or is it a slippery slope?

Same here: you can claim that the criminal "consents" to the enforcement of laws against her only if you can justify ruling over her in the first place.I can: people generally agree that living by my rules is better than not. That's consent.

But what right do you have? Convenience? That is no right at all.Sure it is. Who are you to judge the reasons that people give their consent? Do you have the market cornered on rational decision-making? It is perfectly defensible to consent to political rule for the sake of convenience--and whatever the reason, consent is obliging.

At best, we have a justification that is something like the justification for war: in this world right now, we can do no better. But that suggests that we can only accept an undemocratic regime in the most provisional sense, and that we must always be working to create a society where democracy is possible, to get ourselves out of a condition where injustice is a necessary rule.That's a fantastic ethical argument about what I should hope to achieve, but it totally fails to address the political limitations on ethical choices available to me: in other words, it begs the question (again).

Am I obliged to obey the laws of the state? If I am, then my ethical pursuit of democracy may extend only so far as I can manage within the limits of those laws.

Am I NOT so obliged? Then I may pursue democratic revolution by any means necessary.

The answer is, for most situations, something in between. The point, however, is that asserting an ethical obligation to promote democracy does not in itself answer the question. We must consider the myriad other (cultural) foundations that confer legitimacy on the state.

It does not suggest that we can ever accept such a state as truly legitimate.Your adverb ("truly") has a No True Scotsman ring to it.

And even that's questionable insofar as war can be justified in life and death terms: we act to protect our own lives and physical integrity, or those of others.Seems like a very rational reason to consent, as far as I'm concerned... and to think! I'm the fan of martyrdom!

...Not to enforce rules we set.No, but you're the one who's so dead set on enforcing his own rules. Most everyone else is pretty happy to be alive and well. I happen to agree that an empowered populace that participates in public discourse and decides legislation is an important and noble ideal. I simply do not see how this entails that we should tell the contented masses that they do not "really" consent. Of course they do: ask them. If you are not satisfied with assurances from their own mouths that they consent to the regime, then your definition of "consent" is so abstract as to be meaningless--or rather, it would seem to mean only what you want it to mean rather than what it actually means.

Considering extreme, ridiculously unlikely cases is always practically useless in an immediate sense, but that doesn't mean that it's useless for thinking about principles with broader applications.But it is useless if those speculations do not measure themselves, ultimately, against the need for a realizable praxis.

You can fly the dialectical currents just fine (universal ethics is good for that), but until you learn to keep yourself grounded you're only a philosopher, not a theorist.

We cannot decide that every undemocratic regime is illegitimate without ignoring the facts in front of our faces: many cultures adopt undemocratic hierarchies as perfectly legitimate and justified. In a positive sense, such regimes have authority, they have legitimacy. We need to understand what that thing is that they have, how they get it, how they maintain it... and we need to stop pretending that such studies tell us nothing about "what it should be."

It is the particular conceit of the political philosopher that he believes right relations must follow from purely deductive reason--that is, without any concern for the lessons of experience, of history.

Worse, what's missing is an argument for why self-rule should be not only an important criterion, but the only criterion. Why not security? Why not mere consent?

Because any government by definition uses force against those under its sovereignty, and such force, outside of self-defense, is aggression as long as it has the character of one individual or group against another: as long as it is an imposition rather than a product of common agreement.

My concern was not with the extremity of your judgments but with the linearity of your model: legitimate governments (democracies) on one end and illegitimate governments (non-democracies) on the other. It's the definition of one-dimensional. It flattens critique.

Only if you want to make critique one-dimensional, too--only if you assume that its only role is to discuss political legitimacy. But democracies can do any number of things wrong without becoming illegitimate.

It's precisely political. What it's not is ethical, and that's where your problem lies.

If it's not "ethical", what practical relevance does it have? It tells me what people believe they should do; it does not tell me that they are right.

It goes deeper than that.

If I live in a moderately safe, moderately liberal but non-democratic society and we are invaded, I have a political obligation to defend the state. My obligation here is not to any particular individual or individuals, but to the functions, institutions, customs, land, culture, laws and symbols that hold us together as a people.

You're right, my first temptation is to try to reduce this to an ethical obligation, but that's only because I don't know what you're talking about. What is it about any of that that obligates me? Do I have a duty to our continued existence as a people? Am I automatically conscripted into loyalty to this peoplehood by birth? What if I don't accept our status as a people, at least as presently constituted? What if I do, but don't accept the state (which is, after all, undemocratic) as a legitimate representation of that people?

American liberals, for all their condemnation of Bush lies, distortions, and miscalculations, remain perplexed at the fact that the Iraqi people simply won't lay down their arms and accept democracy: it seems like the rational choice at this point; perhaps it even seems like the ethical choice.

It seems like neither when substantive democracy isn't at offer from any faction. As you have stressed, mere formal features of democracy--elections, parliaments, suffrage--aren't enough.

Political legitimacy is rooted in culture, not reason.

Why?

Then your distinction ("better" or "worse") is practically meaningless, because if it bears no relation to legitimacy then it does not map onto the practical categories "more obliging" and "less obliging."

Nonsense. I can oppose bad laws in a democracy, and I am obliged to do so. I can support good laws in a dictatorship--at least insofar as obeying it, and encouraging others to do the same--and I am also obliged to do so.

Yes, but you would also say that no one under the dictatorship should be obliged to pay taxes to fund universal health care; that hospitals need not obey mandated procedures; and so on, because none of these laws would have any legitimacy. According to you.

I've already said that we might have an obligation to obey the laws (at least some of them) in a dictatorship. But that doesn't alter the illegitimacy of the regime or the obligation to bring about democracy. More importantly for our question, it doesn't alter the legitimacy of revolution: the fact that the government does good things for the people at most only necessitates a more stringent restriction on the means.

Or if it does, then none of us owe obedience to ANY modern regime, since every polity has its origins in injustice: pushing some other people off the land, forcing the dissenters to submit.

"Origins" are not eternal. A polity that has its origins in injustice can still be justly governed.

While everybody draws arbitrary lines and shoots at each other, I prove myself to be a quick draw and a crack shot. I suggest that, rather than shooting each other all the time, everyone should bring their line disputes to me and promise to abide by my decisions; they must also recognize my authority to shoot anyone who violates the compact. Seeing the wisdom in this, everyone agrees.

That's consent, but it ain't no democracy.

This is a stronger version of consent than your past formulation of mere residence in the country, but ultimately it fails for the same reason.

What do I consent to? You imply that I must consent to every particular decision of yours. But why? I want certain rules to be enforced, but not others; I want certain policies implemented, but not others.

Do I consent to your rule as such? I say I do not. Perhaps I say "Yes", but if I do I only do so because you have denied me any alternative. Presented a choice between bad and worse, I have chosen bad, but I have never accepted--and crucially have no reason to accept--your right to limit my choices to those two options.

"Consent" as distinguished from will always requires right. Two partners in an economic transaction "consent", even if they don't get what they want, because each of them has the right to dispose of their property as they see fit: they may will that the other dispose of it on terms more generous to them, but they cannot (legitimately) will that the other be forced to do so.

Without this, "consent" is indistinguishable from coercion. As gunman, I can declare that those who cross my line prefer me shooting them to the alternative (the weakest standard of "consent", and the one you seem to be proposing), but this is no justification. The consent you have proposed is a false consent, because it depends on a circularity: your right arises from consent, but "consent" only makes sense as long as you have right.

Let's consider a concrete case. I break one of the rules you have set, and you claim that you can punish me with death, because I have consented. But what have I consented to? I have said only that it is preferable that you alone rule as dictator than that all of us rule as dictators. I have not consented to this arrangement of the alternatives: I would much prefer a dictator who makes different rules, or no dictators at all. You presume that you have the right to package the alternatives this way, but I say you do not: I have no reason to honor your dictatorial ambition. In effect, I "consent" only to the rules I like; the others, I do not consent to, because I deny your right (and justifiably so) to package them together with the others.

If you kill me, you have committed murder. You have imposed judgment when you have no such right. You have presumed, as I do when I draw my line, that you have the right to determine the alternatives available to others. But you do not. And you can ground no such right in "consent" when that "consent" is dependent on exactly that right.

Sure it is. Who are you to judge the reasons that people give their consent?

It is not the reasons for consent that I question, but the justification for enforcement.

The point, however, is that asserting an ethical obligation to promote democracy does not in itself answer the question.

Yes, it does, because the obligation stems from the provisional nature of the undemocratic political system--the provisionality you are ignoring. I accept it as necessary when democracy is impossible. But it is only justified in that context, and to the extent the possibility for democracy is real, its legitimacy fades. The moment I materially can make a democratic revolution, I ethically can as well.

To continue the analogy with war: in war, I accept violence as a necessary feature, and I can justify an obligation of obedience to those leading the side for which I fight as a similarly necessary feature. But when a just peace becomes possible--or when I am faced with a group of surrendering enemy soldiers--I am not entitled to continue killing people even if those who command me tell me I must. If I am told to do so, I must refuse, and take the consequences.

Seems like a very rational reason to consent, as far as I'm concerned... and to think! I'm the fan of martyrdom!

It's a perfectly fine reason to consent. But it is not a justification for governance insofar as governance is necessarily concerned with much more than that: say, establishing rules of property ownership (and enforcing them at the expense of the lives and physical integrity of violators.)

I simply do not see how this entails that we should tell the contented masses that they do not "really" consent. Of course they do: ask them.

Ask them what? "Do you support the existing government?" But with what alternatives?

I do not insist that a population overthrow a government it would not replace if it could. But I do insist that such means of replacement exist, in case they change their minds.

We cannot decide that every undemocratic regime is illegitimate without ignoring the facts in front of our faces: many cultures adopt undemocratic hierarchies as perfectly legitimate and justified. In a positive sense, such regimes have authority, they have legitimacy. We need to understand what that thing is that they have, how they get it, how they maintain it... and we need to stop pretending that such studies tell us nothing about "what it should be."

But now you're the one who's begging the question, and in a way that does, indeed, make abstract philosophy useless--not because it is necessarily so, but because you deny it its role.

"Many cultures" adopt lots of things "as perfectly legitimate and justified." Why stop with undemocratic hierarchies? Why not talk about patriarchy? Heterosexism? White supremacy? (Whose culture is it, anyway? That of the men, or of the women? Of the straights, or of the gays? Of the whites, or of everybody else? Of your dictator, or of those whose freedom he denies? Surely you do not think that these cultural structures were immaculately conceived and maintained by common consent?)

We need not assume that an explanation amounts to a justification, even a partial one. We can explain all of those things in material terms that do not justify: we can talk of power differences, of oppression, of ways certain social forms might become dominant against the will of their victims, and without justification.

The whole point of the philosophical critique is to abstract from that, to for a moment leave what is even now a very unjust, very messed-up world so that, upon returning, we can see it with clearer eyes. And act to change it.

That is not to say that in the course of studying a feature of a given society, we might find reasoning that does, in fact, genuinely justify it. To remain intellectually isolated is always a problem. But it is a problem not because it means that thought is not grounded in the "real world," but quite the opposite--by narrowing thought to the interpretations of a particular culture, it serves instead to make thought too grounded. It lets the circumstances of the "real world" confine it.

It's not that "consent" of the sort you speak isn't good enough to justify enforcing the laws in general. It's just that it necessarily breaks down whenever we consider a particular case: I can say of each individual that he or she has consented to obeying some laws, but I cannot say that he or she has consented to obeying this particular one.

Yes, it does. If you have organized bodies of people with guns enforcing the rules you set, that's government.

The most you can claim for it is that it's non-monopolistic (in theory), but if what is desired is a society where human relations are not regulated by coercive enforcement, it fails miserably.

Do you not believe someone has a right to enforce contractual obligations? You seriously doubt the ancap for advocating what Proudhon based his politics on. Contract and voluntarism.

The arguments for the non-coercive nature of property are there, and simply because someone accepts them does not make them a statist.

Do you not believe someone has a right to enforce contractual obligations?

Actually, no. Not automatically. I see no inherent injustice in a society that does not permit enforcing contracts.

The arguments for the non-coercive nature of property are there,

I walk on your land ("yours" according to ancap property theory anyway), you call your gang to drag me off. (Or threaten me with violence yourself.)

How is this anything but "coercion"?

Because any government by definition uses force against those under its sovereignty,Since when? New definition, and political theorists weren't notified?

and such force, outside of self-defense, is aggression as long as it has the character of one individual or group against another: as long as it is an imposition rather than a product of common agreement.So?

I get it. It's an imposition. What's the bloody problem with that? My parents' rules were imposed on me, my school's rules were imposed on me, my employer's rules are imposed on me... damn, I have trouble coming up with an aspect of life in which I'm NOT covered in imposition.

Only if you want to make critique one-dimensional, too--only if you assume that its only role is to discuss political legitimacy. But democracies can do any number of things wrong without becoming illegitimate.That's right, but this debate is about legitimacy, about a supposed right to revolution: and you make it one-dimensional.

If it's not "ethical", what practical relevance does it have?You state that as a tautology. Why so sure there is no practical knowledge outside of ethics? Fixing a car isn't ethical, but it surely has lots of practical relevance.

It tells me what people believe they should do; it does not tell me that they are right.Politics, unlike ethics, is compelled to deal with people as they are.

You're right, my first temptation is to try to reduce this to an ethical obligation, but that's only because I don't know what you're talking about.You're not thinking. You're so confident the logic is right that you refuse to think about the politics... and politics, it turns out, simply is not always logical. Even in an ideal world. It's too human for that.

What is it about any of that that obligates me? Do I have a duty to our continued existence as a people? Am I automatically conscripted into loyalty to this peoplehood by birth? What if I don't accept our status as a people, at least as presently constituted?Then you'll need to figure out some other people, build a new one: but I can guarantee you won't do it with fine reason and fancy arguments about self-rule.

The Old Left knew this much, at least: you don't build the labor movement by promising the revolution, when workers will rule themselves. You promise shorter hours, safer conditions, better pay... and when you get those things, you say, "See? This is what happens when we build class consciousness! This is what happens when we identify with each other instead of with the nation! Now let's keep at it until we take it all!"

Why did the New Left collapse under its own weight? Because it didn't know how to make demands: it was so convinced the state was "illegitimate" that the only word it could utter, stupidly, was "revolution." Good philosophies? Yeah. Inspiring visions of a better world? You bet. Any political insight whatsoever? No, sir.

Nonsense. I can oppose bad laws in a democracy, and I am obliged to do so. I can support good laws in a dictatorship--at least insofar as obeying it, and encouraging others to do the same--and I am also obliged to do so.Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me why. So far, you're only reason for obedience has been "I had some say in it." What are the other reasons for obedience? What other principles factor into legal obligation. You've just admitted that there must be some: tell me what they are.

I've already said that we might have an obligation to obey the laws (at least some of them) in a dictatorship. But that doesn't alter the illegitimacy of the regime or the obligation to bring about democracy.Perhaps not. What I'm driving at is that here you have obligations in conflict--and irreconcilably so. What that should tell you is that there is no "ethical" solution... only political ones.

More importantly for our question, it doesn't alter the legitimacy of revolution: the fact that the government does good things for the people at most only necessitates a more stringent restriction on the means.But that's already a serious restriction on this so-called "right," no? Of course I have a right to pursue it "within certain means"--I have that right to just about anything. But you seem to have retreated from your original position in this thread, which seemed to call for a broad right to cause chaos, uncertainty, bloodshed in the name of democracy. Now I'm hearing you say that, because we are obliged to obey good laws, we may not have a right to overturn the world in every case.

"Origins" are not eternal. A polity that has its origins in injustice can still be justly governed.Indeed. But you're the one who maintains that a society of peace and good laws is not possibly governed justly unless it was a mass of people who wrote those laws.

Ultimately, I think your argument fails on the "would accept" principle: if the government enacts the very same laws that the democracy would, if in fact this were a democracy, what right have the people to complain? That they're missing out? If they would be obliged to the very same laws under a democracy, I cannot see how they should not be obliged under autocracy. And if they are so obliged, I cannot see much room for revolution besides perfectly peaceful, within-the-system organizing. And I've never made ANY argument that we shouldn't have a right to this.

This is a stronger version of consent than your past formulation of mere residence in the country,No, it's actually the same argument taken from different directions.

What do I consent to? You imply that I must consent to every particular decision of yours. But why?Oh, there's no "why." Take it or leave it... but if you leave it, you remain my enemy and I may well shoot you. Certainly the rest of us aren't going to want you around if you won't play by the new rules.

I want certain rules to be enforced, but not others; I want certain policies implemented, but not others.I'm sure you do, and if you want to hold out for democracy (or, perhaps, your own dictatorship), do that. Otherwise, agree to my deal.

Do I consent to your rule as such? I say I do not. Perhaps I say "Yes", but if I do I only do so because you have denied me any alternative.That's simply not true. You could die. You could try to find another place to live without all this silly talk of lines and death sentences. I'm offering a deal: submit to me, and I'll kill anyone who tries to attack you. Whether you accept the deal is still up to you.

Presented a choice between bad and worse, I have chosen bad, but I have never accepted--and crucially have no reason to accept--your right to limit my choices to those two options.I? I don't limit your choice at all... The circumstances are such that we are unequal positions to bargain. It's not my fault that you can't shoot better or faster.

Lots of choices are between bad and worse. Most people would choose bad, on the very same principle by which they would choose "better" over "good." Indeed, the difference is semantic and therefore irrelevant.

"Consent" as distinguished from will always requires right. Two partners in an economic transaction "consent", even if they don't get what they want, because each of them has the right to dispose of their property as they see fit: they may will that the other dispose of it on terms more generous to them, but they cannot (legitimately) will that the other be forced to do so.That's right. And in my little state of nature, above, you might choose to remain in conflict rather than accept the terms of surrender.

On your argument, no one should ever be obliged to the terms of surrender, which is a recipe for ongoing conflict. The whole point of politics is to arrest that situation and give us hope for something better. You have to respect the treaty... even if you're on the losing side.

Without this, "consent" is indistinguishable from coercion.They do get pretty close, don't they? Still, I think there's no getting around the fact that Hobbes is right: the very possibility of peace (of ANYONE accepting a surrender) depends on losers taking the terms of surrender as obliging.

As gunman, I can declare that those who cross my line prefer me shooting them to the alternative (the weakest standard of "consent", and the one you seem to be proposing), but this is no justification.You're mixing perspectives again. I don't care about whether the gunman is justified. What I care about is whether I have an obligation to honor my promise to him after I make it. If I don't want to make a promise to an unjustified asshole (if that's how I see him), then I may continue to oppose him, perhaps to the death. But once I promise, I am bound to my promise. Otherwise, I undermine the ability of anyone else to surrender: I commit them to death in my own cause, and I have no right to this.

The consent you have proposed is a false consent, because it depends on a circularity: your right arises from consent, but "consent" only makes sense as long as you have right.Someone else's consent has nothing to do with my right. Do you really think it incoherent to suppose that someone else can consent to my doing something unjustified? Consent need not confer justification on my actions to serve its political function: it need only function so as to oblige the consenting person. Indeed, the brilliance of Hobbes's analysis is that he does not suppose the sovereign needs any justification at all: no one gives him something he did not have in the state of nature; the rest of us just renounce our own natural right to kill, use force, and so on, leaving him with the monopoly.

Let's consider a concrete case. I break one of the rules you have set, and you claim that you can punish me with death, because I have consented.Actually, I never said I could punish you with death. I said that if anyone tries to attack you, I'll defend you to the death. I don't presume there is any consent whatsoever that should get you walking to your own death chamber, so I assume that if I try to execute you in legal fashion you will fight to your last breath. If I'm smart, I avoid the death penalty.

But what have I consented to? I have said only that it is preferable that you alone rule as dictator than that all of us rule as dictators. I have not consented to this arrangement of the alternatives: I would much prefer a dictator who makes different rules, or no dictators at all.Since when is consent about preferences? You're still thinking about will: you would will that the world should be such-and-such. But consent is simpler: consent is saying, "Okay, I'll take it."

You presume that you have the right to package the alternatives this way, but I say you do not: I have no reason to honor your dictatorial ambition.I didn't "package" the alternatives any way whatsoever. I offered you a deal, and you took it. You might have held out for more (though circumstances were not in your favor); you didn't.

You could have raised all those alternatives at the negotiating table, and I would have said, "Nope. Nope. Nope. My rule or we keep fighting." You're the one who caved.

If you kill me, you have committed murder. You have imposed judgment when you have no such right.Can't be. It wouldn't have been murder when we were all at war, killing each other, and killing is only murder now because I say so, as the law to which everyone else has consented. If I kill, I say it's not killing... and that's the law. I do not gain any new powers besides the powers I had in the state of nature: I merely keep what you give up, namely unlimited right.

You really should read Hobbes. He's a good time. :)

You have presumed, as I do when I draw my line, that you have the right to determine the alternatives available to others. But you do not.Sure I do. What law exists to deprive me of this right? None, until I create one. Until that point, indeed, you have just a much right to your line, just as much right to defend it... you only relinquish that right when you consent to political authority that says otherwise.

And you can ground no such right in "consent" when that "consent" is dependent on exactly that right.I don't know where you're getting this. Consent is consent: I can consent to anything, regardless of whether you have a right to demand it.

To continue the analogy with war: in war, I accept violence as a necessary feature, and I can justify an obligation of obedience to those leading the side for which I fight as a similarly necessary feature. But when a just peace becomes possible--or when I am faced with a group of surrendering enemy soldiers--I am not entitled to continue killing people even if those who command me tell me I must. If I am told to do so, I must refuse, and take the consequences.You might rightly conclude that this should be your ethical stance, but it does not change your political obligation: nor does it change the fact that the consequences themselves may be fully justified.

If you decide, all by yourself, that "just peace" is possible... but your commanders insist you keep fighting until the enemy can be pressed into accepting terms more favorable to your side, you are obliged to press on. You do not have the authority to decide for everyone what counts as an opportunity for peace. Indeed, with the exception of a truly murderous enemy, a just peace is always, immediately possible: if I give in to all of your demands, we will have peace and I will have consented. But then I am never obliged to fight.

It's a perfectly fine reason to consent. But it is not a justification for governance insofar as governance is necessarily concerned with much more than that: say, establishing rules of property ownership (and enforcing them at the expense of the lives and physical integrity of violators.)Still confused about the difference between justifications for government and obligations to obedience, eh?

Ask them what? "Do you support the existing government?" But with what alternatives?Take your pick!

Democracy, you know, takes a lot of work. I might have to pay attention, get involved, worry about advancing my interests or my ideals. But here I have a government which gets it right every time, which mediates between factions peacefully and to mutually agreeable conclusions. Why would I want democracy? I prefer what we have.

Let democracy be an option. Can you deny that this hypothetical attitude represents consent? Your argument tends to suggest that we must regard such a person as irrational/unreasonable, so that his opinion doesn't count... but this seems rather hypocritical.

I do not insist that a population overthrow a government it would not replace if it could.No, you just insist that they overthrow a form of government it would not replace if it could. Sooo much more enlightened. Sooo much less Western-elitist. :rolleyes:

"Many cultures" adopt lots of things "as perfectly legitimate and justified." Why stop with undemocratic hierarchies?Why indeed?

Why not talk about patriarchy? Heterosexism? White supremacy?I will, happily.

(Whose culture is it, anyway? That of the men, or of the women? Of the straights, or of the gays? Of the whites, or of everybody else? Of your dictator, or of those whose freedom he denies? Surely you do not think that these cultural structures were immaculately conceived and maintained by common consent?)Immaculately conceived? No. Maintained by common consent? More often than you seem willing to believe.

How long does it take for a serious challenge to patriarchy to emerge in Western history--for a women's movement to take the scene? To analyze history rather than logic is to ask the question: what is it historically that undermines a custom's/government's legitimacy?

But more importantly, it is to ask why Caribbean women's movements do not (cannot) employ the same arguments as the American women's movement; why Muslim liberationists scoff at the individualistic arguments offered by Western feminism. Your argument (the liberal argument) rests on, among other things, an ontology of the individual that simply has no place in their world.

I am not suggesting that you should ally yourselves with the oppressors (the masters of culture) over the oppressed. I am, however, suggesting that you must support them in their revolutions on their terms--not on yours, or mine (which would be largely the same), or ours as Anglo Westerners. And you should not be surprised or offended if their sense of liberation is not as nearly tied to democracy as yours.

We need not assume that an explanation amounts to a justification, even a partial one.I'm not talking about explaining, I'm talking about understanding. Explaining is objective, it looks at behavior from the outside: understanding is subjective, an attempt to appreciate that other people may not have the same goals or aspirations as we do, perhaps not even the same conception of "freedom" nor even the same basic ontological categories. We must respect them in a broader sense than what you have attempted so far.

The whole point of the philosophical critique is to abstract from that, to for a moment leave what is even now a very unjust, very messed-up world so that, upon returning, we can see it with clearer eyes. And act to change it.Indeed. But "constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair," to quote the master. ;)

When there is no way for people to legally obtain what they want, revolution is the only answer. That's why democracy is a good idea, people are allowed to change most things without killing anyone. It doesn't matter what the political ideology is, as long as the citizens are getting what they want, but there are some ideologies that tend to keep the things people want away from them.

Democracy isn't good because people can change things without killing anyone, it's good because it gives people the illusion that they can change things without killing anyone.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.

:D

So?

I get it. It's an imposition. What's the bloody problem with that? My parents' rules were imposed on me, my school's rules were imposed on me, my employer's rules are imposed on me... damn, I have trouble coming up with an aspect of life in which I'm NOT covered in imposition.

True, but you have the opportunity to participate in making the rules that you must obey. Even in employment, you have a say insofar as you can participate in societal decisions about property, contracts, and the distribution of wealth. As a participant in the public will, you can be meaningfully said to rule yourself (insofar as this country is actually democratic, in any case.)

You state that as a tautology. Why so sure there is no practical knowledge outside of ethics? Fixing a car isn't ethical, but it surely has lots of practical relevance.

Of course it does. But knowing that doesn't give me any kind of obligation.

Then you'll need to figure out some other people, build a new one: but I can guarantee you won't do it with fine reason and fancy arguments about self-rule.

Fine. I've never pretended to be particularly talented at mass appeal. (I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I'm just not any good at it.)

What does this have to do with revolution? Do you mean to suggest that the pure principle is not good enough to generate a movement for democracy? But, again, fine. I'm willing to accept that.

Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me why. So far, you're only reason for obedience has been "I had some say in it." What are the other reasons for obedience? What other principles factor into legal obligation. You've just admitted that there must be some: tell me what they are.

Actually, I've admitted another one: in recognition of the need for common rules, even bad ones, we cannot universally will that people disregard them. But this obligation is subject to conditions, to circumstance. We are not allowed to plunge society into social chaos. But we may well be allowed (say) to steal to feed the hungry... or to mount a revolution, insofar as such a revolution has a real chance of success with a minimum of bloodshed and disorder. We are obliged to condition our violations of the law, but not to absolutely avoid them.

But that's already a serious restriction on this so-called "right," no? Of course I have a right to pursue it "within certain means"--I have that right to just about anything. But you seem to have retreated from your original position in this thread, which seemed to call for a broad right to cause chaos, uncertainty, bloodshed in the name of democracy.

Look, as I tried to say earlier, you're misreading me, and it's my own fault.

You have to understand where I was coming from with this thread: as my OP indicates, I was really concerned with a particular objection to revolutions, namely that they overthrow the basic principles of political right that make stability and order possible--that they assert the right of the people to judge in their own case, to act independently instead of to submit their disputes to a legitimate common arbiter. (Edit: Your own argument below, about being obliged to obey the terms of surrender, is exactly in this spirit.)

I was not really thinking about bloodshed... not because I think such considerations don't matter (in that very post I talk about the "usual considerations" of proportionality and efficacy, and elsewhere in the thread I've defended revolution in general as a tactic because it does not always mean mass killing) but because, at least in principle, the answer to this difficulty is fairly clear and uninteresting. You try to cause the least amount of chaos and bloodshed, and you don't do it if what you hope to accomplish is either implausible or isn't proportionate to the means necessary to get it. (Admittedly, "proportionate" is vague... in this context I mean it in essentially consequentialist terms.)

When I said that the people are always justified in revolting, my point wasn't that we can cause an unlimited amount of chaos and bloodshed to achieve the democratic ideal--that's perverse. My point was that there is nothing about an undemocratic government that makes it legitimate in itself, that should get us to avoid revolting even if we can do so with perfect efficacy, with negligible cost.

Now I'm hearing you say that, because we are obliged to obey good laws, we may not have a right to overturn the world in every case.

No, not because we are obliged to obey good laws, but because insofar as that government is benign, we are not justified in using extreme measures in overthrowing it.

Ultimately, I think your argument fails on the "would accept" principle: if the government enacts the very same laws that the democracy would, if in fact this were a democracy, what right have the people to complain? That they're missing out? If they would be obliged to the very same laws under a democracy, I cannot see how they should not be obliged under autocracy.

Actually, I think you're right, insofar as we can say that the public wills those laws right now. But if the laws are imposed against the will of the public--if the justification is purely hypothetical, something along the lines of "If the people knew the difficulties of governance, they'd recognize the need for this law"--it's a different matter entirely. That's passing into the territory of paternalism.

Lots of choices are between bad and worse. Most people would choose bad, on the very same principle by which they would choose "better" over "good."

Of course they would. Most people would choose to give their money to the robber threatening them at gunpoint, too, but we don't talk about "consent."

On your argument, no one should ever be obliged to the terms of surrender, which is a recipe for ongoing conflict. The whole point of politics is to arrest that situation and give us hope for something better. You have to respect the treaty... even if you're on the losing side.

But that's precisely the point: you impose something on me by force, and you want to insist that I am obliged to recognize your right? A war to rule over others, even over a just enemy, is not a justified war.

Still, I think there's no getting around the fact that Hobbes is right: the very possibility of peace (of ANYONE accepting a surrender) depends on losers taking the terms of surrender as obliging.

There's something to this... I suppose we might say that we are obliged to obey even an unjust government insofar as by doing so we give it a reason not to be truly oppressive.

But this reasoning is not definitive: it has its limits. To accept this as a rule is to accept the immutability of the status quo: the government is in power, and I'm essentially ceding my right to work against it. But there's something to be said for the refusal to accept the government's power in the first place--to refuse to let its capacity for violence protect it from challenges. If we hold to just government as an ideal, we should be looking for the opportunity to change the terms of the situation as a whole, to no longer live in a society where we must serve or fear brutal reprisal.

I begin to see what you mean about "conflicting ethical obligations"... :)

Indeed, the brilliance of Hobbes's analysis is that he does not suppose the sovereign needs any justification at all: no one gives him something he did not have in the state of nature; the rest of us just renounce our own natural right to kill, use force, and so on, leaving him with the monopoly.

I deny that any of us have this natural right, and the mere fact that the others "consent" in a weak sense to his rule does not mean he suddenly gets it.

We have a natural right to personal freedom... and even in the "state of nature" we cannot kill each other except in self-defense, or war (which is really just extended self-defense). That's part of treating others as ends-in-themselves; it's Rousseau's point in the Social Contract, when he denies the legitimacy of any government founded on the usurpation of human freedom.

It's only when we get into property that we need common rules to decide upon "right"... because one object or another is not obviously incorporated into your or my personal freedom.

It's worth noting, furthermore, that even if I have the obligation you note above to obey the terms of my surrender, it does not follow that you have the right to enforce my non-compliance.

Actually, I never said I could punish you with death. I said that if anyone tries to attack you, I'll defend you to the death.

"they must also recognize my authority to shoot anyone who violates the compact."

I was going off that. You did say that we would bring all our line disputes to you; you seemed to be suggesting something quite a bit more than mere collective self-defense.

I don't presume there is any consent whatsoever that should get you walking to your own death chamber, so I assume that if I try to execute you in legal fashion you will fight to your last breath. If I'm smart, I avoid the death penalty.

I didn't mean to suggest seriously that we would have a discussion about political right before you kill me. The conversation was just to illustrate the point.

You could have raised all those alternatives at the negotiating table, and I would have said, "Nope. Nope. Nope. My rule or we keep fighting." You're the one who caved.

But this is precisely the "packaging"... you're dictating the terms, and your offer is no better than "accept or die."

It seems to twist the meaning of the word to call this "consent."

Sure I do. What law exists to deprive me of this right? None, until I create one.

Why is that? I say that this "right-less" state of nature theory is self-contradictory: you insist that I have a moral obligation preceding my promise to honor my promises, but you deny that any of us have any other moral obligations prior to our agreement. But why is that? By what standard can you assert one, but not the other? (Obviously they are logically distinct. The contradiction is not a direct logical one so much as it is suggested by the reasoning: if in the context of social chaos I am permitted to use any and all means to defend my safety, why is lying not one of them?)

The "state of nature" doesn't mean total war of all against all, not in theory and not in reality. Not that social chaos is pretty, but it's still reasonable to expect people to abide by certain minimal rules.

You do not have the authority to decide for everyone what counts as an opportunity for peace.

I don't assert it, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't come a point where insisting on this is pedantic, where the obvious fact of the matter is that we are engaged in a war that has no respect for anything but the harshest peace--not a peace that might actually bring justice.

Indeed, with the exception of a truly murderous enemy, a just peace is always, immediately possible: if I give in to all of your demands, we will have peace and I will have consented.

I am never obliged to give up my own freedom like that. But, yes, for this exact reason we are never obligated to fight--but we can speak of "wars of necessity" nevertheless insofar as we have no other choice to maintain that which we have a right to keep.

Still confused about the difference between justifications for government and obligations to obedience, eh?

Not at all. I'm talking about enforcement. This entire part of the discussion was started, if I recall correctly, by my attempt to justify my assessment of undemocratic regimes as necessarily aggressing against the people.

Let democracy be an option. Can you deny that this hypothetical attitude represents consent?

No, it represents consent. I don't pretend otherwise.

No, you just insist that they overthrow a form of government it would not replace if it could. Sooo much more enlightened. Sooo much less Western-elitist. :rolleyes:

What kind of imposition is it, to have a periodic referendum? (I wouldn't insist on actual democratic politics in a broad sense.) Do we allow individuals to sell themselves into slavery? Is that prohibition a violation of freedom, too?

My only insistence is that the government not act against their will. If they choose to support it, that's their choice. But if they choose not to, that's also their choice--and to deny them the institutional capacity for that choice is in effect to deny that.

How long does it take for a serious challenge to patriarchy to emerge in Western history--for a women's movement to take the scene?

Better question: would it not have been perverse for someone, in the early years of its development, to insist that women were obliged to accept male supremacy, having "consented" to it? (Or even long before its development, in an individual case of resistance?)

Look, I read Marx long before I cared about Kant. I understand that being ethically right doesn't magically change the world: movements are built out of real historical factors. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be justifying the rule of the powerful. Abstract philosophy may not give us everything about the "how", but it gives us the "ought"--or broad outlines of it anyway.

I am not suggesting that you should ally yourselves with the oppressors (the masters of culture) over the oppressed. I am, however, suggesting that you must support them in their revolutions on their terms--not on yours, or mine (which would be largely the same), or ours as Anglo Westerners. And you should not be surprised or offended if their sense of liberation is not as nearly tied to democracy as yours.

I have no problem with self-determination, with people liberating themselves on their own terms rather than mine. What I have a problem with is a fake self-determination that equates "freedom" with a traditional status quo, however oppressive... that fails to appreciate that cultures and groups are not neatly unified wholes, but can and do have oppressors and oppressed.

And if we reject this notion, if we recognize that if respect for the freedom of other groups must mean respect for the members of those groups as a whole and not merely the powerful, then we come almost by necessity to conclusions that, if not strictly "democratic" in the traditional Western sense, are nevertheless "democratic" in a broader sense--that advocate a sort of freedom and equality that necessitates a democratic foundation for social systems if not a democratic administration.

Even your own justification for non-democracies on the basis that the people prefer them to the democratic alternative indicates this sort of reasoning.

I'm not talking about explaining, I'm talking about understanding. Explaining is objective, it looks at behavior from the outside: understanding is subjective, an attempt to appreciate that other people may not have the same goals or aspirations as we do, perhaps not even the same conception of "freedom" nor even the same basic ontological categories. We must respect them in a broader sense than what you have attempted so far.

Fair enough.

I voted for "fundamental freedoms," though my definition of what these are is probably a bit broader than most. However, I would personally practice only non-violent resistance for any thing short of genocide, more or less. I condemn no one, however, for fighting back when they or their friends/family are physically threatened.

This is a question that I have asked myself before, and watching the new John Adams miniseries on HBO brought it back to mind. I was forced to ask myself: when would I consider violent revolt an acceptable course of action? A part of me would like to say never, but when I imagine my home going the way of Afghanistan, or Nazi Germany... Over the years, I've reluctantly come to accept that some wars must be fought.:(

In the end the government must be made to serve the interests of the people. I say "made to" because I truly believe that any government will ultimately seek more power than it has a right to.

Actually, no. Not automatically. I see no inherent injustice in a society that does not permit enforcing contracts.

How can breach of contract be anything less than fraud or theft?

I walk on your land ("yours" according to ancap property theory anyway), you call your gang to drag me off. (Or threaten me with violence yourself.)

How is this anything but "coercion"?

There are arguments of what constitutes just ownership and proportionality in justice that pertain to this, but according to the ancap, one defends what is rightfully his or her, and by way of this right, it is not coercion any more than it is coercion to defend a sandwich that one has just made.

How can breach of contract be anything less than fraud or theft?

Why would it be either, in a society where you knew that contracts were unenforceable? When you make one, you take a risk. What of it?

There are arguments of what constitutes just ownership and proportionality in justice that pertain to this, but according to the ancap, one defends what is rightfully his or her, and by way of this right, it is not coercion any more than it is coercion to defend a sandwich that one has just made.

Technically, there's something to this. We are entitled to defend what is rightfully ours. The problem is that to use this definition in comparing political systems really misses the point. By this reasoning, the statist can say that a state system isn't coercive, either, because the state acts to defend its rightful laws. But it would be ludicrous for the statist to insist that this means she is not advocating government.

Why would it be either, in a society where you knew that contracts were unenforceable? When you make one, you take a risk. What of it?

Because moral law is not bound by the positive institutions of society. You know that.

Technically, there's something to this. We are entitled to defend what is rightfully ours. The problem is that to use this definition in comparing political systems really misses the point. By this reasoning, the statist can say that a state system isn't coercive, either, because the state acts to defend its rightful laws. But it would be ludicrous for the statist to insist that this means she is not advocating government.

The state is not entitled to defend anything. It is not a moral or right-holding entity.

Because moral law is not bound by the positive institutions of society.

So?

The state is not entitled to defend anything. It is not a moral or right-holding entity.

Groups of people acting together, then... use whatever term you like better. It amounts to the same thing.

So?

So your conclusion doesn't follow. Simply because society does not allow contracts to be enforced bears absolutely nothing on whether it is fraud or theft or right or wrong.

Groups of people acting together, then... use whatever term you like better. It amounts to the same thing.

If people can act as a collective or individually to protect themselves and their rights without resulting in a state, then there are no anarchists.

Simply because society does not allow contracts to be enforced bears absolutely nothing on whether it is fraud or theft or right or wrong.

You're ignoring my point by inputing to it a meaning that isn't there. Again: why would it be either, in a society where contracts were unenforceable?

What violation of rights does the person who goes back on a contract commit? In a society where contracts were unenforceable, it's not that the violation of right wouldn't be punished, it's that it wouldn't exist because no contractual transfer of a right to another's behavior in that sense would be possible.

If people can act as a collective or individually to protect themselves and their rights without resulting in a state, then there are no anarchists.

The difference between the state and any anarchist system is the mode of organization, not the existence of organization.

But this is beside the point. My original point standards: if coercion only extends to force beyond "right" (and this is a defensible definition), then it is begging the question to advance a society free of coercion. You have to first establish right.

Not to be all lockean, but its gotta be whenever a government is not acting in the interests of the people. Therefore a government can be undemocratic, as long as it still looks out for the people, there's no real reason for revolution. It's up to the people to be rational enough to determine what is and isn't within their interests.

Not to be all lockean, but its gotta be whenever a government is not acting in the interests of the people.If you're going to be all Lockean, shouldn't that read, "whenever a government is not acting in the interests of the property-holders"?

If you’re going to be all Lockean, shouldn’t that read, “whenever a government is not acting in the interests of the property-holders”?
Not necessarily.

To Locke, government could be oppressing those without property through arbitrary use of force, and revolution would be morally acceptable; indeed, morally required. Although he’s big on defending property, ol’ Johnny Locke also has an interest in life and liberty.

Not necessarily.

To Locke, government could be oppressing those without property through arbitrary use of force, and revolution would be morally acceptable; indeed, morally required. Although he’s big on defending property, ol’ Johnny Locke also has an interest in life and liberty.He sure likes that phrase a lot, but see if he actually backs it up.

There are reasons he was too ashamed of Two Treatises of Government to put his name on it. The author of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was too well versed in reason to admit to the question-begging rhetoric and thinly veiled equivocations of the political text.

He liked his conclusions: protect the propertied. But he hated the fact that he couldn't make the argument stick without dissolving life and liberty both into property.

Ultimately, his equivocations rest on a deep ambiguity in his presentation of human nature (which simply does not hold up against the more rigorous presentations of his Essay). He obscures (as best he can) his premise that people come in two varieties: possessive individuals (rational, self-interested, economic creatures who value growth and productivity)... and everyone else (irrational, sentimental, social creatures who value such ideals as beauty or dignity over property and productivity). Oh, and it just so happens that God likes the producers. (Seriously, read the Second Treatise again. Too many readers gloss over his religious argument as if it is mere window dressing, but his whole argument actually depends on it.)***

It is on the basis of this distinction that he can so wholeheartedly endorse the enslavement of Africans (a trade in which he was heavily invested) and the outright slaughter of Native Americans: these people did not make proper use of their land... or, for that matter, their bodies.

Such is the extent of the argument I care to lay out in summary. If you'd like more, check out C.B. Macpherson's Introduction to the Second Treatise--a dense but very cogent explanation of just this point. Better yet, check out his Political Theory of Possessive Individualism.

*** For that matter, read the First Treatise: no one reads it anymore, and collectively we tend to remember the fact that Locke soundly trounces Filmer's biblical arguments for the divine right of kings (which he does) without recalling that he does so primarily through his own biblical exegesis: he defeats Filmer but never removes himself from the position that we can and should derive political principles from biblical reference points. He just disagrees with Filmer about what the book actually says. And by the time he gets to the Second Treatise, he is willing to rest his own case (with some diversions) on the divine command to "be fruitful and multiply," to toil away at mastery over God's creation.

probably just about any time it takes an act of heroism to be honest. i'm just not in favor of people using even that as an excuse to kill each other.

=^^=
.../\...

I would have thought this was fairly simple. Revolution is can only justified when you win. Revolution tends to be a pretty polarising process and losers often get vilified.

If you're going to be all Lockean, shouldn't that read, "whenever a government is not acting in the interests of the property-holders"?

This, and your further explanation on what's wrong with the Second Treatise, is why i tried to distance myself from Locke. I had to give credit where credit was due though, as my solution is the exact same as his given in The Second Treatise.

This, and your further explanation on what's wrong with the Second Treatise, is why i tried to distance myself from Locke. I had to give credit where credit was due though, as my solution is the exact same as his given in The Second Treatise.Then perhaps you'd care to share your solution to the subjective-value problem?

This was really what led Locke to rely on God's judgment. He needs to explain why, when any one person says, "This is mine," the rest of us should agree: he needs to justify rights to (particular kinds of) property.

His labor theory goes something like this: all this land is just sitting around, and that's well and good for all of us. But if I take one little scrap of land, plow it and plant corn, I've made it better: it's more productive, there's more food, this is a good thing. That added value, moreover, came from me--it's mine, I make a reasonable claim to it and everyone else should agree. They might try the same for themselves, elsewhere.

But consider: what if I had taken the same little scrap of land and planted it with poison ivy? Would anyone consider it improved? Is there any added value? Far from it!! My neighbors should say, "What have you done to our lovely field?! We could walk in it, we could enjoy the sun, and now it's covered in poison ivy! Ruined!" No one should agree that you have made this your "property" by ruining it.

Consider now a beautiful waterfall and natural swimming pool below. Discovering flakes of gold in the water, you take it upon yourself to tear down the mountain in search of gold. You find it, it's valuable... the land is more productive. "I've improved this!" you want to say (as does Locke). "I shall reap the rewards!" But your neighbors are (rightfully, I think) pissed: the community valued the waterfall and the pool.

Here is the problem: Locke wants to claim that the productive use of land is always an improvement; that individual proprietorship can be justified on the fact that individuals will be productive with their own land (but not with a commons). But who says so? What makes productivity an objective value that trumps all other subjective values?

Who says so? God, for Locke.

So what's your argument?

Who says so? God, for Locke.

I'd argue that tacit approval from society, through non-interference or otherwise is what would provide the justification, especially reinforced if a majority of the other members of society are also taking a similar tack with the common, and forsake their claim to the rest of the common, unless through trade with society.

At worst, property rights have been grandfathered into legitimacy from centuries of recognition.

So what's your argument?


I shall limit myself to the right to rebel.

It's true that Locke bases his overall political argument over god making men, however, his argument about rebellion does not require that premise.

Basically, Locke said that government was instituted to meet the interests of the people. Locke thought that interest should be property, but lets exclude property for, shall we say, quality of life.

If at any point a government is not improving the people's quality of life, as determined by the people, then they have a rational reason to rebel. As I said at first, the responsibility is on the people to determine when a government is irrational, or, in other words, when a government is destructive to masses quality of life.

That way, democracy, which is more likely to bring about improved livelyhood, is not given a free pass should its leaders become destructive and/or power hungry. By the same token, a dictatorship, while likely to be power hungry, is not necessarily removed if it is doing good by the people. Call it the 'Don't fix it if it isn't broken' strategy of state-removal.