theophiles.org - Quotes From The Fathers On Mercy That Might Enlighten—Or Offend

Quotes From The Fathers On Mercy That Might Enlighten—Or Offend—You

Written by whitemice

Tuesday, 31 January 2012 06:21

I generally enjoy the content found on InternetMonk; and mourn the passing of its founder Michael Spencer. The writing always seems even-handed and generous; surprisingly most of the comments do as well. But I found this article especially interesting:

This is part two of a three part essay from Martha of Ireland exploring how love, justice and mercy all tie in to our salvation. Let’s take a look at what some Church Fathers had to say on the topic, and if we remember that justice, as well as charity, is also the foundation of mercy, perhaps we will not be so shocked by any appearances of proto-Communism, crypto-Socialism, or being less than fervent Free Market Capitalists on their parts.

Comments

emperorbma - state coercion=FALSE charity

|2012-02-03 23:42:00

See, I don't know why the free market is being treated like it's somehow anti-charity. That particular strain of thought owes more to which philosophy of free market ethics one buys into more than the concept of a free market. Ayn Rand had a problem with charity. Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard do not as long as charity is voluntary.

What those of us who favor a free market complain about with socialism and communism is that it seeks to use the state as a tool to coerce charity through implicit physical threats. The state is, to put it bluntly, a tool of coercion which is to be used sparingly* and only against the evil it exists to combat. It is not a tool to coerce charitable acts.

*-if at all, since anarcho-capitalists reject the need for government because they think its roles can be better performed by voluntary opt-in free market options.

The free market does not imply the absence of charity. (or even self-discipline, for that matter...) Rather, it demands that all charity be a voluntary act. The principle of Robin Hood is still that of a thief, no matter how much good he wanted to do with money that God entrusted into other peoples' stewardship. Placing one's trust in a system of robber barons is a broken window fallacy. Yes, the glass maker gets a job to repair the glass, but you still deprived the baker of his window and any good he might have done with the money he was deprived of. Who knows, perhaps he would have given some of his bread to feed the beggar down the street? Now he cannot because the child broke his window and he needs to sell it to make up for his losses.

Sure, we should be charitable as Christians but not because a man with a sword demands it from us. Rather, we should give because we are lovers of God and lovers of our fellow man. As it is written, God loves a cheerful giver. One cannot be a cheerful giver if Obama is sending the IRS to hound you like a dog for every penny because you don't want to participate in his great health-care extravaganza or Bush is sending his goons to take your money for his next big war.

Charity is entirely good when done voluntarily. What the true libertarian opposes is making the government a tool of coercion and false charity. Remember, the Church fathers say that our money "belongs to the poor" NOT because Caesar demanded it from us but, rather, because we are "slaves of God" first and foremost and whoever loves God also loves his neighbor. If we are slaves of God, then we are also a servant of our neighbor but we are by no means slaves to anyone other than God. I sincerely doubt the Church fathers are advocating that we take money away from people without them being willing or able to give it. Rather, they are advocating that we should all be willing to give, voluntarily because in the end we are merely stewards of these gifts from God.

(Also, don't even get me started about crony capitalism. Libertarians reject big businesses that use state coercion just as much as any state coercion done simply at a government's tyrannical whim. That and I'm rather upset at those traitors to freedom that are advocating SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/censorship right now but I digress.)

whitemice - re: state coercion=FALSE charity

|2012-02-06 16:47:39

emperorbma wrote:

What those of us who favor a free market complain about with socialism and communism is that it seeks to use the state as a tool to coerce charity through implicit physical threats. ...The free market does not imply the absence of charity. (or even self-discipline, for that matter...) Rather, it demands that all charity be a voluntary act.

This is quite a bit off-topic from the thrust of most of the quotes; what they denote to me is a much more radical call for charity than I have every heard (with one notable exception) at a church service. That calls for "self-sacrifice" from the pulpit are absurdly cautious and faint. It was the difference in vibrancy and scope that hit me the most.

On the other topic of "free-market" and charity. I don't think they are even related. A top-down command-control economy can be devoid of charity and 'social justice' equally as much as a "free-market" economy. And while I have no interest in discussing the issue here I can answer some of your criticism, speaking as a socialist (I am a Socialist), simply : free-market people typically miss the point entirely when debating with socialists. It isn't that we (or at least I) doubt the efficacy of the free-market.... it is simply that I don't believe in the the free-market... in the same manner that I don't believe in leprechauns and unicorns. When the socialist says he "doesn't believe in the free-market" he usually means that he doesn't believe in the *existence* of a *free* market. So debating coercive use of state power, etc... won't ever change a socialist's mind; because you have only the choice between the coercive power of commercial interests and coercive power of the state (in which I at least have elected representation). All other choices are false; pretending that a market is "free" only concedes the power to commercial interests.

emperorbma - historical context framing problem...

|2012-02-06 17:52:05

As I am, philosophically, libertarian, I'll reserve any of my disagreement about the potential existence of a free market for another discussion, then...

I think the main reason we don't see these kind of extreme terms today is not because we, as modern Christians, reject the basic sentiment that they convey but because they are apt to be misconstrued. The Church fathers never presented this as something that should be done at the point of a sword, nor as something that deprives of what we honestly need to survive, nor as something that exceeds one's ability to comply. Rather, their words are from the vein of thought that everything belongs to God, so anything we seek to claim apart from Him simply isn't real. As Paul would put it, "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ." (Phil 3:8)

In the light of this, we do not belong to ourselves. We are "slaves of God" because, in the end it is He who maintains us and provides for us. By contrast, when we hear slavery in modern society, the context is not that of a caring provider but that of someone who drags us out of our homes, sticks us on a boat and forces us to work on their plantation. The context of slavery, as the fathers saw it was one of loving and happy servitude to a caring provider. (cf. Oneismus) The context of slavery as it is seen in modern society is that of a tyrant demanding unreasonable things from people he beats needlessly. Therefore, I surmise, the issue is cultural and contextual. The latter "tyrant" presentation is, obviously, wrong.

Basically, it seems that the evolution of culture has unwittingly usurped the intended message of the Church fathers in their original presentation such that it requires a specific grounding in their mindset to know what they are saying or a recharacterization (e.g. the more common presentation as "servants of God") to correct for verbal connotations that have since drifted. Of course, the shock value is also useful but only if someone is intelligent enough to pierce through the veil of 2000 years of cultural changes and not merely snap to the "common man's" conclusion that these guys were supporting tyranny.

I couldn't tell you how many people like Richard Dawkins or the late Chris Hitchens would have a field day with the kind of language that the fathers used, naturally by taking it out of context. Hell, they even do this with Martin Luther's "reason is a whore of the devil" (taking it out of Luther's context of "reason being abused against faith") and Martin Luther was from the 1500s! How much more are ignorant moderns or anti-Christian pundits apt to misconstrue something from the 300s..?

laika - re: historical context framing problem...

|2012-02-06 19:31:20

emperorbma wrote:

I think the main reason we don't see these kind of extreme terms today is not because we, as modern Christians, reject the basic sentiment that they convey but because they are apt to be misconstrued.

Certainly they're misconstrued by "we, as modern Christians," since we modern Christians are indistinguishable from the dominant culture of consumerism. There's gonna be some misconstrual when one sees everything through the lens of I-got-mine-and-you're-free-to-get-yours social Darwinism.

The definitive answer of modern Christianity to issues economic is contained in the prosperity gospel.

emperorbma

|2012-02-06 19:37:46

I always thought the problem there is that people see things as a Zero-Sum "for me to win, everyone else must lose" game.

emperorbma

|2012-02-06 19:43:02

Addendum: The thing is, an economy ISN'T a zero-sum game. It can grow and shrink depending on how well it is stewarded. There is no reason why, if we were good stewards of God's gifts, everyone couldn't live comfortable lives. The problem is, we aren't...

laika

|2012-02-06 19:59:00

emperorbma wrote:

I always thought the problem there is that people see things as a Zero-Sum "for me to win, everyone else must lose" game.

I don't see it as a Zero-Sum problem. Theoretically, we can all win. It's more like "I'm winning, shame on you if you're not."

emperorbma - "value ethics" vis a vis economics

|2012-02-06 20:32:49

Or, maybe for some, "I'm winning but I have no idea how to help you do the same?" Or, for others, "I'm being screwed too, so who will help me?" Or, "I give to charity already so why are you criticizing me?" It's not so cut-and-dried "consumerism=bad."

People in an economy (whether free market or managed) work to acquire "value" and value can include anything, including charity. Love is a value. Food is a value. Peace is a value. Security is a value. What the problem is, for those who are greedy, is that they value material wealth* more than charity and love. For Christians, our "ultimate Value" should be God and, by consequence of being in His image, our neighbor as ourselves. It is possible that some people are wrongly educated to believe that wealth is the "ultimate value" and, if this is the case, then it is something that should be addressed.

However, Hanlon's razor suggests that we should not attribute to malice what can be boiled down to simple ignorance. We need to avoid finger-pointing when making an evaluation because merely blaming "consumerism" sounds a lot like blaming the victim. That said, "prosperity gospel" is propagation of misinformation and should be countered appropriately...

*-N.B. "wealth" needn't be the only problematic value. It is simply one of the more common. Other problematic "values" that compete are "happiness," (eudaimonia) "pleasure," (hedonism) "revenge," (false justice) "duty," (deontology as an excuse) and "usefulness." (utilitarianism) Pretty much any philosophy of ethics that doesn't include God, first and foremost, is a flawed and problematic system.

laika - re: "value ethics" vis a vis economics

|2012-02-06 21:29:22

emperorbma wrote:

However, Hanlon's razor suggests that we should not attribute to malice what can be boiled down to simple ignorance. We need to avoid finger-pointing...

Pretty much any philosophy of ethics that doesn't include God, first and foremost, is a flawed and problematic system.

You know, it kinda takes the pleasure out of my little rants when you force me to examine my broad generalizations...

emperorbma

|2012-02-06 21:46:20

Wow, I wasn't really expecting to be met with such a response. I'm actually at a loss for words now...

laika - re: state coercion=FALSE charity

|2012-02-06 19:19:03

whitemice wrote:

When the socialist says he "doesn't believe in the free-market" he usually means that he doesn't believe in the *existence* of a *free* market.

Well, it's not like there's one in existence that you could point to. One doesn't need to be a socialist to recognize that.

emperorbma

|2012-02-06 21:18:20

(Somehow, everyone knew I was gonna do this...)

The way libertarians see a free market is actually somewhat eschatological. It is the final result where everybody acts reasonably and actively work against anyone trying to cheat the system. Namely, everyone has a legitimate self-interest in preventing others from jacking around with them so they will have a good reason to try to keep others from jacking other people around. It's basically like the Golden Rule in practice, but it is applied to the ability for people to trade goods with other people. (... and God also has a commandment against using unfair scales in trading but that's another story)

The reason "free market" isn't relegated to an End Times ideal similar to being sinless is for those of us who aren't Christ (i.e. although all Christians are redeemed from sin even in this life, we are only rendered sinless [in deeds] after the Resurrection) is because we libertarians believe there is the natural incentive (i.e. something that can be deduced solely by pure reason, even for a fallen unrepentant sinner) of keeping people from jacking each other around. Whether they can be informed enough to keep it going, that remains to be seen but the government obviously isn't doing a better job and the illusion of "accountability" evaporates day by day as travesties like SOPA and ACTA are demonstrating quite amply that governments are quite easily corrupted... (and, as I said, libertarians absolutely despise crony capitalists who coopt the government as a tool of control.)

For comparison, Christianity's eschatology works because of the supernatural incentive of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of grace and the fulfilled promise of Christ's return to set everything back in order according to the Father's Will and does not rely on anything we do by works or human reason, even though we are keeping the gift of faith and trying to live as closely to that ideal as we can. In effect, I see a free market as a complementary effect to Christ's teaching which is something I honestly cannot say about a self-corrupting, falsely accountable, socio-governmental framework.

Ironically, now that I think about it, socialism itself doesn't actually require a tyrant state either. (e.g. there's social anarchists too) It has, however, historically aligned itself with endorsing statism which is why libertarians and anarcho-capitalists tend to use it as a counter-example because libertarians are fundamentally minarchist and anarcho-capitalists are, obviously, anarchists and both favor a market approach to a social control approach. The fundamental thing that libertarian ideals reject is coercive "rulers" who tell people what to do and do not trade equally with everybody else. In net, libertarianism is voluntary-ism. Insofar as this non-coercion is already possible, the market is already free but insofar as this is not, we are compelled to raise our objections. (and, unfortunately, it looks like we keep on losing ground.)

laika

|2012-02-06 23:57:45

emperorbma wrote:

I see a free market as a complementary effect to Christ's teaching which is something I honestly cannot say about a self-corrupting, falsely accountable, socio-governmental framework.

And what would keep this free market from becoming self-corrupting and falsely-accountable? Not that we'll ever see one, but I can't imagine why it would be free from corruption.

emperorbma

|2012-02-07 03:07:07

The basic [pure] libertarian perspective is that, in a free market, anyone concerned can challenge the corruption. Interested individuals can rally against things that they find corrupt and can setup groups on the basis of common agreement. In libertarian philosophy, there is still a state but it can only prosecute the basic crimes that everyone agrees are wrong: murder, thievery and fraud. Anarcho-capitalists (which take the additional step of removing the state entirely), of course, would delegate this duty to private agencies.

In either case, the state would no longer manage public works, which would be maintained by the interested individuals for their own needs. The state would no longer [ab]use taxes to coerce charity and the duty for charity would again belong charitable organizations and religious institutions and only by actual consent. There is not a consensus, but many libertarians reject "intellectual property" as "imaginary property" and see it as monopolistic rent-seeking and even those who do support IP generally do so with greatly reduced terms in mind reflective of the original concept of copyrights as a social contract with the people rather than these absurd life+120 year government-created monopoly copyrights we have now. Education would be selected by the parents or taught at home and, consequently, wouldn't have any issue teaching the parent's values alongside trade skills and critical thinking.* The military would be recalled to serve solely in protecting our own country instead of meddling pointlessly and harmfully in the affairs of other countries. Taxes would be much, much lower if they existed at all** so people get to decide toward which public works and needs their money goes, not the all-knowing nanny state. Insurance premiums would be a choice rather than an obligation and disaster-relief would be a form of opt-in insurance.

-- side notes:
*-Of course, this doesn't mean a libertarian state will ever endorse or prohibit religious teachings. That belongs to the individual's own conscience and to God, not to the state. Also, there is a rather obvious "coercion" issue it raises if such a system doesn't handle it as "making no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Of course, murdering or stealing in the name of a faith still falls under the "night watchman" provisions.
**-The "official" libertarian philosophy is that taxes are a coercive evil that amounts to thievery. Of course, unless one is an anarcho-capitalist they are also a "necessary evil" needed to maintain the state. However, it is also possible to construe them as paying for the services of a "night watchman," which mollifies this objection and is more in-line with the Biblical conception of taxation.

Of course, I must also add my own personal disclaimer to this because, as I see it, the actual implementation of this may a significant degree of compromise, as much as I am loath to admit it. I'm not blind to the limitations of "pure libertarianism," and I realize most of these positions would have a hard time being actualized. Especially ones that people have become accustomed to stuff like public works. If it were ever implemented, those would probably have to be weaned slowly into public management so they don't just get dumped in the cold. Otherwise we'd likely suffer an infrastructure collapse. Also, opt-out on the things like disaster relief or education may probably have to take the form of a voucher unless we can be sure people won't be completely stupid in opting out of necessary services, but that would need to be decided when the system was implemented. The primary reason I espouse the libertarian philosophy is because its primary objective is to minimize the massive bureaucracy and give the rights back to "we the people" and take them back from "big government" and "rich businesses" whom it is implicitly clear do NOT have our best interests at heart. Despite the difficulty of getting a sane and usable implementation, I am convinced it is a useful ideal to pursue as far as political philosophy. Obviously, as my disclaimer implies, I can hardly be considered "purist." However, I think nearly all of us can agree that the basic goal of minimizing unnecessary government is infinitely more desirable than having government continue to expand into becoming "Big Brother" and nosily and creepily invading everything in our lives.

Unlike today, where people rally against corruption and then find the government that drives them off public lands and incarcerates them, (e.g. the response to OWS) in a libertarian free market, the police would only get involved if there is actual violence, fraud or a legitimate threat to property. Keep in mind that in a free market, the sword cuts both ways and a frivolous claim is also fraudulent then people will also become suspicious of the people "crying wolf" or they would have to pay the costs for wasting everyone else's time. Ultimately, every individual would be free to make their own decisions on an important matter free from coercion.

Furthermore, the lack of the massive bureaucracy means that corrupt businesses can't turn the government into a tool to make themselves more powerful like they do now. There would not really be anything to corrupt as the government would be minimized as much as reasonably possible. There could be no "buying congressmen" because the law would basically boil down to "do not steal, do not murder, do not defraud." Corporations would no longer be treated as if they are "people" and would no longer be immune from the consequences of killing people. If anyone is injured, a business can be called to answer for it and the responsible individuals can be brought to account.

laika

|2012-02-08 01:05:12

emperorbma wrote:

Of course, I must also add my own personal disclaimer to this because, as I see it, the actual implementation of this may a significant degree of compromise, as much as I am loath to admit it. I'm not blind to the limitations of "pure libertarianism," and I realize most of these positions would have a hard time being actualized.

Well, even if implemented, there's no reason why another - or the same - set of problems wouldn't crop up real quick. "We, the people" already have all manner of checks and balances at our disposal, but we choose not to exercise them. Inertia, heavy investment in the status quo, whatever - we allow things creep out of control and then actively participate in a broken system.

Same with term limits and flat tax-type schemes. Limiting a term is dead simple at the voting booth. And theoretically, don't we all basically pay the same tax rate? It's the effective tax rate that's the problem; loopholes; exemptions, et cetera. Why would all that change if the tax rate was set somewhere else on the scale?

emperorbma

|2012-02-08 09:33:05

laika wrote:

Well, even if implemented, there's no reason why another - or the same - set of problems wouldn't crop up real quick.

Well, naturally. The goal of libertarianism is that the people will have the freedom to opt-out of things they don't want to participate in.

laika wrote:

Limiting a term is dead simple at the voting booth.

A funny story about these limits, though. It doesn't really help when it's a choice between "in the pocket of devil A" and "at the whims of demon B."

laika wrote:

Why would all that change if the tax rate was set somewhere else on the scale?

It wouldn't. The corrupt just wouldn't be able to force us to play by their ballgame because we could setup an alternative somewhere.

It's the equivalent of "forking" an Open Source Project that has corrupt leadership. You know, like how XFree86 lost its devs to X.Org because they changed the license to be incompatible with the GPL. Or, how OpenOffice.org lost its devs to LibreOffice because of Oracle's mismanagement...? In either case, the original didn't disappear it just died off in the public eye because its proclamations became irrelevant. Kind of like how Saddam's proclamations became rather empty toward the end of his regime and how Quadaffi's proclamations sounded more and more insane toward the end of his regime.

In a libertarian system, we can simply start an alternative system that doesn't do the "thing we don't like..." The Open Source universe is, effectively, an archetypical implementation of a pure free market and there is no reason why government itself couldn't be "open source" and accessible to the people.

laika - Open Source

|2012-02-08 12:29:53

emperorbma wrote:

In a libertarian system, we can simply start an alternative system that doesn't do the "thing we don't like..." The Open Source universe is, effectively, an archetypical implementation of a pure free market and there is no reason why government itself couldn't be "open source" and accessible to the people.

But you're making my point:

laika wrote:

"We, the people" already have all manner of checks and balances at our disposal, but we choose not to exercise them. Inertia, heavy investment in the status quo, whatever - we allow things creep out of control and then actively participate in a broken system.

I had open source in mind while typing the above. It's the perfect real world example of while you'll never see anything more an uptick of libertarian yakkety-yak once every few election cycles. People aren't flocking to open source solutions. It remains on the fringe, with the overwhelming majority of folks thinking it's a communist plot, something to be avoided. People enthusiastically embrace and defend the mainstream approach when presented with a choice. People will actually pay to use inferior solutions. It's true of open source and it's true of government and the marketplace - people will flock to the bad choice.

Really, it's the absolute perfect of example. Think about it: Ron Paul is greeted by a roll of the eyes by the mainstream, while the flip-flopping, pandering, job-destroying elitest Romney is seen as the serious and sensible choice. Same with Linus, ESR, RS et al. Most people don't even know who they are, but everybody knows and admires the serious corporate titan Bill Gates.

emperorbma - libertarianism = natural law

|2012-02-08 14:56:25

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find something that DIDN'T have something Open Source used somewhere in it. For example, Windows itself uses the BSD TCP/IP stack. There would literally not BE an Internet without Open Source. Google uses Linux, nearly all the webservers are based on Apache. Open Source isn't merely a fringe solution, it just lacks the marketing hype that the people who eat Benjamins are pumping out. It is the ubiquity of it that is precisely the reason that people are unaware of it.

The concept of libertarian free market is just as ubiquitous. Tyranny is simply a stumbling block that the rest of the market has to work around and, in the end, it does find a path. This is the principle behind why Prohibition failed. A black market made clear exactly how absurd it really was. A black market is the "free market" routing around a damaged node, just as the Internet would redirect around a bad connection. Also, a black market isn't "evil." A black market exists simply because the law has created a false and unjust imbalance that disrupts the natural course of trade. It is, in fact, the fulfillment of the Lord's condemnation against the use of "unfair weights and scales" in the Law. A black market is the "balance," the mirror image of the corruption that exists in a government's laws. Remove the corrupt law and the corrupt black market disappears. It is as Newtons Law and the Golden Rule are: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," and "Do unto others as you will have them do unto you." The naive view of the law is that it is something that can never be violated or else evil will thrive. The proper view of the law is that it is a curb, mirror and a guide but it does not and cannot bring true goodness unto itself. All good must come from a source of goodness, which for Christians is God. We should always respect a just authority (not in the least, because it comes from God), but we should never turn authority into an idol. Freedom is also a gift from God that must be preserved against false and corrupt authority. (And, likewise, freedom requires responsibility not to be [ab]used for evil.)

The thing is, the US was founded on most of the ideals that libertarians espouse. It has just been falling away from it since day 1. First, the government decided that corporations would be treated like people except that they could kill others without any consequences. Then, the government decided that the states had no right to secede and that the Federal government can spider its authority into everything else. Then, it decided that all the People's rights belong to the Federal government because they could somehow be deduced as "commerce." Then, the government decided that it should tax everybody for everything. Now, the government is being used to grant perpetual copyright monopolies to these "corporate people" for longer than any person will ever live and censoring anybody who tries to innovate with a similar idea. Thus, the whole litany of bugs in the original system become apparent. The reason that libertarian philosophy is so vocal as it is today is because this fact is becoming harder to and harder for the tyrants to cover up the contradictions.

Fair enough, people are not "choos[ing] not to exercise the[ir]" rights. However, this is not a failure of the underlying philosophy as much as it is a failure to keep people informed enough to combat those who dream of being tyrants. I think it is fair enough to admit that maintaining the necessary level of public awareness is one of the primary difficulties of keeping a republic from descending into corruption and this is probably a place where applied libertarian philosophy runs into difficulties...

Lawrence Lessig raises a very useful point about how to analyze this situation: "Code is law." A legislator is, effectively, a programmer. For the libertarian, a minimum of regulation is not the absence of law but a a preference for natural laws over artificial interventions. A government that makes laws to control everything suffers a "calculation problem" because it cannot anticipate every possible thing. God knows better what He is doing than any legislator or tyrant and, since nature was established by God, it follows that it would be created to anticipate things that we couldn't even begin to imagine. Nature itself is also a "free market" which is probably why there is a strong Darwinistic bent among many free-market advocates. However, Darwin's ideas themselves have been parodied and mocked when they are treated as if murder and greed are the only answers. The reality of nature is that charity and compassion also exist in it alongside violence. Competition isn't necessarily hostility or evil, it is simply an acknowledgement of diversity. The goodness of all things comes from God, the evil is allowed by God but God doesn't participate in the wickedness.

When every single natural law tells us that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" it makes sense that a society should anticipate that this law also applies to trade. The problem, in fact, is not that we have too few laws but we have too many laws that go exactly against what they should be doing. Sin itself works by turning the Law against its intended purpose. So, to fix the brokenness, more laws are created which create more brokenness. It is something the devil himself couldn't hope to dream better and it is, almost instantaneously, perverted to his ends so that innocent citizens are now turned into criminals for doing what they naturally do. It is the "Milgram Prison Experiment" in macroscopic form. Obviously, however, our legislators think that they are somehow better than everyone else and can make laws that redirect the natural order to suit their own whims. How foolish we have become, and how proud.

laika

|2012-02-08 19:52:28

emperorbma wrote:

It is something the devil himself couldn't hope to dream better and it is, almost instantaneously, perverted to his ends so that innocent citizens are now turned into criminals for doing what they naturally do. It is the "Milgram Prison Experiment" in macroscopic form. Obviously, however, our legislators think that they are somehow better than everyone else and can make laws that redirect the natural order to suit their own whims. How foolish we have become, and how proud.

But we line up to participate in the experiment! We defend the experiment! And the legislators are better than everyone else - better at getting everyone else to stand in line for the chance to keep them pulling our strings.

You appear to fall victim to the same delusion that I regularly fall for, namely that the internet gives us the idea that there are lots and lots of people thinking like you do. For instance, in real life, I know exactly one person that sometimes uses Linux, but I can talk about it here at TheoPhiles or at any number of other places on line and get the impression that everyone is using it. Same with libertarian ideas, I know exactly one person who is enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but I can get on the internet...

Makers, open source enthusiast, libertarians, etc; they're not the mainstream. And the mainstream is big and entrenched and will fight to keep doing things the same way. "Innocent citizens..."

whitemice - re: re: state coercion=FALSE charity

|2012-02-07 06:42:19

laika wrote:

[quote=whitemice]When the socialist says he "doesn't believe in the free-market" he usually means that he doesn't believe in the *existence* of a *free* market.

Well, it's not like there's one in existence that you could point to. One doesn't need to be a socialist to recognize that.[/quote]

Sure. I just wanted to point it out specifically as I've sat in many rooms where very bright and sincere people talk directly past each other. Too often people throw themselves into arguments and neither side does the tedium of defining their terms firms.

emperorbma

|2012-02-08 21:46:15

laika wrote:

You appear to fall victim to the same delusion that I regularly fall for, namely that the internet gives us the idea that there are lots and lots of people thinking like you do. For instance, in real life, I know exactly one person that sometimes uses Linux, but I can talk about it here at TheoPhiles or at any number of other places on line and get the impression that everyone is using it. Same with libertarian ideas, I know exactly one person who is enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but I can get on the internet...

Might I venture the following hypothesis: The "like-minded folks" exist but are far less vocal than the "mainstream." Might it be that there are a decent number who share the opinion but have a hard time communicating it well in meatspace? (... or even, that it is being drowned out by the loud ones) Furthermore, since when is being in the majority the same thing as being right?

Remember, the meme of idiocracy is also built upon a flawed perspective. Sometimes people aren't dumb, but sometimes they are. The perspective that "all" applies to either set comes from different sides of the self-centric fallacy that dominates our perspectives as flawed human beings in a sinful world.

The reason it seems like everyone is buying into the broken experiment is because that's all the media seems to be talking about. They don't cover the myriad of people who have thumbed their noses at the establishment in some way or other. They do not cover the myriad of pirates that live in every town. They only cover what their paid shills get paid to cover.

laika

|2012-02-08 22:07:42

emperorbma wrote:

Remember, the meme of idiocracy is also built upon a flawed perspective. Sometimes people aren't dumb, but sometimes they are.

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that people are dumb. I don't understand what motivates people to, for instance, repeatedly vote against their own best interests. Voting against one's best interest may be a dumb thinfg to do, but smart people regularly and do it. Witness the enthusiasm for the recent wars that you so disapprove of; engineered by smart people, executed by smart people, and supported by smart people with access to the same information as you. Wildly popular with yes, "mainstream" culture.

emperorbma wrote:

Might it be that there are a decent number who share the opinion but have a hard time communicating it well in meatspace? Furthermore, since when is being in the majority the same thing as being right?

See above if you think I'm equating the majority with being right. And it's possible that I live in the wrong place for a person with interests such as your own to bother/dare communicating them in meatspace.

emperorbma

|2012-02-09 02:12:09

laika wrote:

access to the same information as you

I dispute this. Propaganda is information. Critical thought is also information. I would venture that the people you describe have more propaganda and less critical thought behind their decisions than those of us who cynically point out the obvious.

However, this raises a couple of interesting questions. Why, exactly, do they lack critical thought and is it something they did entirely on their own or is someone leading them like lemmings? If they are being led, then by whom?

I can say one thing for sure. I find it highly unlikely that the kinds of attacks on freedom of speech repesented by SOPA/PIPA/ACTA were done simply by idiots who made a bad decision. I suspect somehow there is a design that extends beyond just the Congress and the Big Media groups. The kind of controls they are seeking to implement are too generic and can easily be retooled to bring the Internet itself into whichever pockets are seeking this kind of control. Unfortunately, reading this kind of situation is harder than making sense of tea leaves.

laika

|2012-02-09 17:36:18

emperorbma wrote:

I can say one thing for sure. I find it highly unlikely that the kinds of attacks on freedom of speech repesented by SOPA/PIPA/ACTA were done simply by idiots who made a bad decision.

Idiots? I thought I was the one being accused of thinking people were dumb.

emperorbma wrote:

However, this raises a couple of interesting questions. Why, exactly, do they lack critical thought and is it something they did entirely on their own or is someone leading them like lemmings? If they are being led, then by whom?

Uh-oh. Please don't tell me it's the Jewish-run media. You don't strike me as the conspiracy type.

emperorbma wrote:

I dispute your dispute. Everyone in this country has access to the same information as you or I, so why can't they arrive, for instance, at the blindingly obvious like you did regarding the fruits of our occupations of Muslim countries?

emperorbma

|2012-02-09 19:27:38

laika wrote:

Idiots? I thought I was the one being accused of thinking people were dumb.

Actually, I've kinda already stated my perspective that "Sometimes people aren't dumb, but sometimes they are." I saw it as more charitable than attributing outright malice.

At any rate, I much prefer the lovable kind of idiot to the harmful kind. :P

laika wrote:

Uh-oh. Please don't tell me it's the Jewish-run media. You don't strike me as the conspiracy type.

No, I don't believe in a conspiracy theory. What I do believe is that it is quite possible that people with particularly evil agendas exist.

There is a nearly 100% probability that some one has, at some place or other, worked towards a goal of attaining tyrrany. I find it highly unlikely that they are all working together. Instead, I think that any time someone else gains ground towards a goal, it advances the agendas of everyone else with similarly twisted ideas. The existence of a common network is superfluous, the only commonality is sinful humans acting deliberately sinfully.

Now, if anyone DID manage to organize this sort of thing, it would be particularly dangerous. That said, I'm "conspiracy agnostic" and I'm merely stating what I think the basic facts seem to support.

laika wrote:

Just because you have access to something doesn't mean you know how to use it. If you lack the critical information necessary to understand something, then it would be just as useless as giving a computer to a caveman. As I said before, "critical thinking" is a form of information. Some people have more of it than others. For many people, the critical thinking has been beaten out of them by deliberately inept education techniques and popular media that do not encourage it...

laika

|2012-02-09 20:05:47

emperorbma wrote:

I find it highly unlikely that they are all working together. Instead, I think that any time someone else gains ground towards a goal, it advances the agendas of everyone else with similarly twisted ideas. The existence of a common network is superfluous, the only commonality is sinful humans acting deliberately sinfully.

Very, very interesting! I generally dismiss conspiracies out-of-hand because of the co-ordination and complexity that would be involved, but I must say that this might be a very useful way of thinking about it.

Yeah, that's a keeper!

emperorbma wrote:

As I said before, "critical thinking" is a form of information. Some people have more of it than others. For many people, the critical thinking has been beaten out of them by deliberately inept education techniques and popular media that do not encourage it...

But we are, in effect, the popular media. We line up and pay to consume their products. They simply supply what our appetites demand. It's not a case of we are what we eat - the media is what we demand to be fed. I refuse to hear complaints about "the media."

As to critical thinking, I can only say that, lacking that skill, I rely on cynicism in its stead and am generally served very well by it ;-)

Now, as an aside, I must point out that I don't differ from many of your views, conclusions, and enthusiasms - for instance I'm using Tiny Core Linux and Chromium to interact with you. Where we would mainly differ in terms of this conversation is that I think we need much moregovernment and more regulation, despite my liking Ron Paul as a candidate. See, where I come from, in my lifetime we had to be forced by the federal government to treat black Americans like human beings. As another instance, look at the huge oil spill that fouled the shores of my state recently and tell me I don't need protection from Big Business. In so many ways, I need a Big Stick to protect me from the goings on in my state. That's a little bit of why I consider libertarianism as a fine ideal for an agrarian society from 300 years ago, but not so useful to me now. That's were you and I are actually differing, my much respected friend.

emperorbma

|2012-02-09 20:58:44

laika wrote:

Not buying it. I can see where you are coming from but it doesn't seem to fit what I'm seeing.

If your argument is correct, then people must really like watching and hearing the same stuff repeated over and over ad nauseam. They must like being called criminals and having onerous DRM imposed on them. Why does the media media complain about piracy if they are in such high demand as you suggest? Why do they charge premium prices for stuff that you can get for more reasonable prices on iTunes without the DRM? Why is it that it is easier for the pirates to be able to play a game but customers end up pulling their hair out because the game won't let them play something they bought? Why is it that Big Media wants to censor society and stamp down on the free advertising they get from piracy? If "we are the media" as you claim, then "we" must really like having a stick jammed up our rear ends.

laika wrote:

... That's were you and I are actually differing, my much respected friend.

Of course, I realize that you will have your own take on these events and I respect this. However I see your examples, and they look like a problem with "too many" regulations to me.

For example, with segregation the problem didn't exactly involve a lack of laws. There were plenty of laws... Jim Crow laws to be exact. The change was not because the government magnanimously realized that these were stupid. Rather, it was because the people stood up and engaged in civil disobedience and protests.

Similarly, I think your Gulf example seems to ignore that the government was already regulating the situation. Some of these regulations were responsible for creating the kind of incentives that led to the disaster in the first place.

Government regulations end up creating messes more than they fix them. The thing is, Libertarianism isn't about abandoning the stick. It's the opposite, actually. It is about making sure that someone else doesn't take away our Big Sticks. Libertarianism is about rejecting coercion, but it doesn't say you can't fight back. The thing is that the most prudent course for anyone is to take a defensive rather than offensive posture. It's something that the "regulation-happy" government seems to forget all the time.

laika

|2012-02-09 23:50:10

emperorbma wrote:

Rather, it was because the people stood up and engaged in civil disobedience and protests.

Yes, mostly people from other states who influenced the federal government to force us to behave.

I don't live at Monticello, or Walden Pond, or in Amish country. I need more regulation from the feds to protect me from my neighbors. From the air that I breathe, to education standards, to working conditions - you name it.

Heck, I personally know two bicyclists who have been hit by cars whose drivers were texting at the time of the accident. The likelihood of that happening should be miniscule considering the tiny number of cyclists in the area. Again, I need more laws, not less.

emperorbma - regulation may increase recklessness

|2012-02-10 10:13:42

laika wrote:

Yes, mostly people from other states who influenced the federal government to force us to behave.

Post hoc fallacy. "Correlation is not causation."

Keeping people from making stupid, abusive (i.e. Jim Crow) laws is not the same thing as "forcing us to behave." What the Feds changed is that they made the laws less stupid and inconsistent. Before their change, you could murder someone of a minority race without being prosecuted or make unfair laws that were biased against someone. The legislation itself was broken.

However, the change toward racial integration, itself, required personal and social changes to bring people to realize the disharmony. Even to this to this day the government hasn't accomplished any real change in this regard because racial integration requires people to believe that it is stupid to treat other people differently because of their skin color. Even to this day, there are people who do not believe this. The internal values are something that no government can force people to have.

It could, in theory, make having thoughts a crime, however that would violate the freedom of conscience.

laika wrote:

I don't live at Monticello, or Walden Pond, or in Amish country. I need more regulation from the feds to protect me from my neighbors. From the air that I breathe, to education standards, to working conditions - you name it.

Agrarian society isn't significantly different than urban society in terms of realities. It is different only in terms of density and distance from the original source of many products. Again, correlation is not causation. It is possible that the same social-libertarian feats can be accomplished better through self-regulation and having people who aren't socialized to be jerks even in a huge industrial center.

FWIW, consider the effects of mandatory bike helmets in Australia. Prior to the introduction of these laws, the number of bicycle fatalities was low. After the introduction, the number of fatalities skyrocketed. Similar results have been achieved in some places in Europe that have actually REMOVED all the traffic signs. People actually drive more safely without the signs. Likewise, the Autobahn in Germany has no speed limits and somehow manages to be safer than US highways. Of course, let's also be careful not to fall into post-hoc fallacy the other way. One proposed mechanism for the correlation is that people who are regulated assume that the laws will protect them so they behave more recklessly and I am reasonably convinced this is true given how much "faith" people place in their regulations. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that more regulations are actually not necessarily always better, but might actually lead to stupider and more reckless behavior.

laika

|2012-02-10 13:26:40

emperorbma wrote:

What the Feds changed is that they made the laws less stupid and inconsistent.

So refining regulation is somehow different from new regulation? And please note that it was "Yankee agitators" forcing the Feds to make "the laws less stupid and inconsistent." It was strong centralized government forcing a state to act justly to all its citizens.

And a statistical oddity in Australia and the fact that Germans know how to conduct themselves on a freeway proves that I don't need protection from my neighbors? Uh-uh.

How rare and exciting! I actually strongly disagree with the emperor!

edit:
I don't mean to discount the brave and heroic homegrown civil rights movement, but I'm afraid that, left to our own devices, we would have hosed, bombed, burned, jailed, clubbed, and assassinated it into stillbirth.

emperorbma

|2012-02-10 14:19:41

laika wrote:

So refining regulation is somehow different from new regulation?

Sometimes. "Do not segregate" is less "code complexity" than "deliberately segregate people who are white from people who are not." The "bug fix" is less complex and more efficient than the original buggy law was. The fact that the Feds intervened in favor of less complexity in a single instance, under the protests of many people, is not a proof that they are the harbinger of rational and sane legislation that protects people. One needs to examine all of the data points on the matter and, when one does one finds the increasing centralization has resulted in more opportunities for corruption and deprivation of the citizen of his or her rights.

laika wrote:

And please note that it was "Yankee agitators" forcing the Feds to make "the laws less stupid and inconsistent." It was strong centralized government forcing a state to act justly to all its citizens.

Perchance were these are the same Feds who, years prior, had ruled that "Separate but Equal" was Constitutional? My point is that the government did not instigate the change.

laika wrote:

And a statistical oddity in Australia and the fact that Germans know how to conduct themselves on a freeway proves that I don't need protection from my neighbors? Uh-uh.

A statistical oddity indicates an opportunity for reassessing a situation. As far as "neighbors" are concerned, most people are reasonable enough not to want to mess around with other people without a compelling reason.

Remember also that Libertarian philosophy still considers "murder, thievery, fraud and property damage" as criminal acts. Pretty much all of your concerns seem to boil down to some kind one of one of these already existing laws in some way. You seem to believe that these protections will be removed but I advocated no such thing. Libertarianism is not synonymous with lawlessness. For what compelling reason do you believe we need special "protection from [our] neighbors" beyond these basic common laws?

Unlike most people, libertarians don't discriminate "in favor" of the government being allowed to ignore these protections impunity, either. Most of these "special protections" amount to a loophole to ignore one of these obligations. Overtaxation is theft. Unjust wars are murder. The laws for these are merely lipstick for a pig, but most people gloss these facts when the government is being discussed. A crime is still a crime whether committed by the President, the Congress, the government in general, an ordinary citizen or a rich businessman or whether it is committed in the name of selfishness or in the name of coerced charity.

A libertarian does not reject legitimate prosecution of crime, rather we demand only that it is applied consistently and without discrimination, excessive bureaucracy or red-tape. The government is no better than the people and, by all rights, it should be equal to "We the People" but all evidence I see suggests to me that the government believes that it is distinct from us and deserves special protections from our scrutiny. Over-legislation is a problem because it masks corruption by burying it under the red tape. However, I perfectly understand that you might disagree with this assessment given that you seem to think the government is actually protecting something that you think "We the People" have no interest in.

laika

|2012-02-10 14:22:01

emperorbma wrote:

For what compelling reason do you believe we need special "protection from [our] neighbors" beyond these?

My neighbors find it necessary to text while driving. I can't depend on my neighbors to do what is sensible. I need a law with big teeth in place to protect me from that practice.

Cyclists and runners are fairly regularly killed by distracted motorists around here, and there is no consequence for the drivers unless alcohol is involved.

emperorbma

|2012-02-10 16:43:55

laika wrote:

My neighbors find it necessary to text while driving. I can't depend on my neighbors to do what is sensible. I need a law with big teeth in place to protect me from that practice.

Doesn't this already boil down to murder and property damage? Maybe throw in negligence as well, but I still see no need to make any extra laws to cover this situation. Just prosecute any injuries as assault or murder, like they are.

Why does everything need a "thou shalt not" when the "thou shalt nots" that we have already say the same thing?

The other side of this problem is that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to do things that would otherwise be negligent or stupid. How can you plan for all these scenarios when mathematics itself has proven that one cannot come up with a finite set of rules that can be both consistent and complete for all cases? There is always the odd exception to everything.

emperorbma

|2012-02-10 17:30:50

P.S. I totally respect the gist of what you are saying. I think driving with texting is negligent and harmful, too. I'm just making the case that sometimes the "solution" creates other problems.

laika

|2012-02-10 17:36:21

emperorbma wrote:

The other side of this problem is that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to do things that would otherwise be negligent or stupid.

Oh, sure, and legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. I'm sure that the murderer sometimes has a legitimate for silencing his victim, or that the woman who hit my cycling buddy felt that texting her boyfriend about meeting for drinks was a legitimate reason for texting.

emperorbma wrote:

Doesn't this already boil down to murder and property damage?

Property damage, maybe. But murder? Not around here.

emperorbma

|2012-02-10 18:01:02

laika wrote:

Property damage, maybe. But murder? Not around here.

Perhaps it should, then. Of course, the law also factors in intent and negligence so it would probably be considered "involuntary manslaughter with gross negligence."

laika wrote:

Oh, sure, and legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it.

Fair enough, but I wasn't arguing for people being able to weasel around the obvious rules. True, as you imply, sometimes there might be mitigating factors such as when a dictator is causing grave harm to people or executing a criminal for murdering other people. Arbitrarily deciding to commit murder or ignore something that is likely to lead to manslaughter isn't one of those mitigating factors. People can at least be expected to act responsibly.

Rather, I'm arguing that sometimes the rules are designed stupidly and do more harm than good. Example, DMCA. It aims to enforce copyright better, but it ends up destroying many of the fair use provisions and making anyone trying to do cryptography research into a criminal.

Maybe we might need to draw a distinction between laws that are absolutely critical for society to function without people killing each other and laws that are there because some lobbyist pandered for them before we can come to a better agreement. You seem to be arguing for necessities whereas I seem to be arguing against lobbyist garbage that gets treated like it's critical for society...

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Thursday, 02 February 2012 18:27

Our valuable member whitemice has been with us since Thursday, 10 September 2009.

Show Other Articles

Some Top Fives. (16 April 2012)
The Grey: A Story of Survival and Faith ? (31 January 2012)
Positive feeling, lack of specifics. (31 July 2011)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online