[ExI] Conscientious objections

Sat Nov 17 09:16:09 UTC 2012

My apologies for posting what is essentially a "me too" message, but Dan
stated things so well.

I haven't thought of myself as a libertarian for years now, but some
discussions -- like this one -- remind me sharply that my core sentiments
remain close to that viewpoint. Free market anarchism remains deeply
appealing even though I don't think it's feasible today. Things change. Go
back a a few centuries, and it was right to think that democracy was not
feasible at that time. I do think (contrary to my younger self) that some
collective goods and free rider problems cannot be solved TODAY and so
cannot call myself a true libertarian, but I remain supportive of that as
an ideal and hold out hope that we can eventually make that an achievable
form of society. In the meantime, certainly we could move a huge distance
in that direction.

Despite Adrian's admonitions, I remain a proud and deliberate non-voter.

--Max

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:45 PM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Using the
> >> notion of externality here is also inappropriate: If you look at the
> >> usual meaning of this term in economic literature, it applies to costs
> >> or benefits of trade not transmitted through prices, or affecting
> >> persons other than the buyer and seller directly involved in the
> >> trade.
> >
> > You drive on roads that I have paid for, in an area where the
> > closest thing to an armed robber (taxes) is something you can
> > plan for, and is based primarily on how much money you have
> > mooched off other people (likely in exchange for services
> > rendered, but if taxes and armed robbery are morally identical,
> > the same comparison holds between not offering your services
> > for free and outright helping yourself to others' property).  You
> > can not avoid taking advantage of these things my money
> > helped pay for, so long as you are within the United States.
>
> This argument doesn't hold water for several reasons. First of all, for a
> case for an externality to work in a consistent fashion, one has to have a
> clear definition of property. That runs up against problems with public
> property. Anyhow, with no clear definition of who owns what, then any
> argument that something is an externality explodes.
>
>
> Second, Rafal is also forced to pay taxes and the like. It's not like the
> government leaves him alone and he decides to use the roads and the like.
> So, in so much as you think he owes others for this, he owes them. But
> given that there is force involved in funding these things, someone using
> them is not really stealing as such. That's just the make believe logic of
> democratic government: that you own the state, therefore, people who use
> the state's stuff are using your stuff. That works to keep people focused
> not on state aggression but on people who protest it.
>
> But even allowing that you own the state -- or that you and the rest of
> the subjects of the state own it -- since Rafal is one of the subjects he
> owns it as much as you. Again, the argument falls apart.
>
>
> Third, not voting doesn't really change his tax position. People who don't
> vote still have to pay taxes, last I checked. Not voting -- even not
> registering to vote -- does not in the US or any nation I know of mean one
> can avoid taxes. If it does, please let me know quickly so that I can
> contact the tax authorities in several nations for a big refund.
>
> Fourth, it's hard to measure who uses what, so comparing this to a market
> exchange, where people pay for specific things or services (and can choose
> to opt out), doesn't make sense. Taxes (and deficits, which are always
> going to be some of future, and inflation, which is not a only a sort of
> future tax, but is spread across the economy in ways hard to predict) are
> very unlike market transactions because there is no opting out.
>
> And please don't go on about being able to leave the country. That is just
> like saying I can leave when a robber invades my house. If you're going to
> accept that logic, then you're arguing for might makes right at every turn.
> This all allows the state to make the rules here, where the thing I believe
> Rafal is arguing -- and if he isn't arguing I am arguing it -- is that
> state (or any state anywhere) has no just claim over him or even over the
> people, territories, and wealth it controls. Thus, it is just like the
> robber invading someone's home: it has no right to be there and can't make
> any just claim for others to leave simply because it's there.
>
>
> > Therefore, if you want to cease your obligation to me, the only
> > practical choice is to leave the United States.  Otherwise,
> > there most certainly is an externality.
>
> He doesn't have an obligation here to you -- nor you to him. Obligations,
> by definition, have to be by expressed consented to. They can't be
> presumed, but must be openly agreed to, which means that there has to be a
> way to disagree to them -- and not something like, "He agrees that I'm king
> over him because he hasn't moved to Antarctica leaving all his worldly
> positions with me. So, there it is, I'm king!" That's the nature of an
> obligation. If you don't accept that, then obligation becomes a vague
> concept that's merely what someone else feels yet another person owes her
> or him. (And if you're going to bite the bullet on that one, well, then
> obligation becomes useless: you see this as a valid obligation, but Rafal
> doesn't and that's that.)
>
> > Now of course it is impractical for you, me, and everyone else
> > to directly decide all of these issues, on a scale of the entire
> > United States.  So there is a set of people - the "government" -
> > elected (or appointed by the elected, or appointed by the
> > appointees of the elected, but all ultimately responsible to the
> > electorate - that is, to all of us) to handle these matters.  Your
> > part is to vote, to formally register your preference alongside
> > mine in how these things should be handled.
>
> That's the grade school civics view of why we have rulers. The truth,
> however, is people make all kinds of complicated decisions all the times
> and they do so voluntarily. (And even in cases where they do use experts or
> specialists, this is done voluntarily and they retain the right to not use
> them on an individual basis. For instance, I choose my auto mechanic. There
> is no election of a board to choose one for me.) The argument from
> complexity is a nonstarter. In fact, some of the most complicated things,
> such as how scientific theories are created, tested, and promulgated come
> about through a voluntary process of individuals freely interacting.
> Scientists don't elect representatives to decide which theories are valid
> and which should be set aside. Yet complicated scientific theories are
> somehow invented, tested, refined, and spread (or rejected). How's that
> possible?
>
> Well, it's a complicated issue, but it seems that it's a much similar
> process to how many other spontaneous orders work, including markets,
> language, and evolution. The fatal conceit here is to think a few experts
> or some politicians can do better and should trump the millions of
> individuals making choices for themselves. (In fact, one is reminded of a
> certain politician making a speech about a certain now bankrupt solar cell
> maker is just a humorous example of how good politicians are at picking
> winners.)
>
> And were your argument true -- that some choices are so complicated and
> that somehow electing a tiny number of people to make them worked better
> than the alternatives -- why it should be applied more widely. We should
> comprehensive economic planning just like in the Soviet Union. The economy,
> after all, shouldn't be left to hundreds of millions of people who know so
> little and can make all sorts of bad decisions impacting the rest of the
> world. We should go back to arranged marriages -- marriage is, after all, a
> very complicated decision that impacts so many others. We should have
> elected officials or expert panels deciding what careers people can get on
> track for -- so as not to waste all that effort of schooling and training
> the wrong people for the wrong job only to have them work in another field
> or have to be retrained. And complicated things like scientific theories
> should be brought under some sort of national or international planning. We
>  wouldn't want, say, people just dreaming up any theory and wasting
> valuable resources that should only go to theories approved by those in
> power.
>
>
> > The "but my vote doesn't count" argument only holds true if
> > you only look at yourself.  If ten million people believe that and
> > use that reason to not vote, when they would otherwise have
> > voted third party - well, if they had voted, people would not have
> > as strong a perception that third parties are nonviable, would
> > they?  You can lead by example - vote, and that may inspire
> > those who believe as you do to likewise vote.
>
> The same reasoning might be used to say you should spend your money on
> this product or you should invest in that stock: if ten million people did
> the same as you, think what would happen? But Rafal was only speaking for
> himself. He was talking about and justifying why he acted the way he did --
> not asking what would happen if ten million others did the same. To be
> sure, if far more people didn't vote, that would actually lead to the whole
> political system being seen as much less legitimate. And if they all argued
> the same way Rafal did, then it would be very hard for the system to
> continue to function as it does now. In fact, any real world government,
> even the traditionally despotic one, depends on most people going along
> with and only a tiny number ever challenging its authority. If most people
> don't go along, well, it's obvious what would happen: the state will
> basically fall apart. But even if most people acquiesce but a large
> minority -- and it does
>  not have to be 49%; my guess is 5% or maybe 10% -- challenges it, it's
> days are also numbered. No real world state has a large enough police force
> or enough prison cells to handle that. (And the genocidal solution is
> mostly off the table, thankfully.) In such cases, the state would either
> fall or have to negotiate something, maybe allowing a secession (as with
> the former Soviet Union) or maybe limiting itself (as with many protest
> movements throughout history).
>
> Also, there's another problem here. If Rafal is an anarchist, then why
> should be vote at all? He would be morally against voting and it might be,
> on that account, wrong to participate in a process he's against. (One might
> even argue, contra you, that him voting would be hypocritical.) In such a
> case, there would be no third party that would satisfy him by definition.
> (This is basically my position too: I don't want anyone to be president.
> It's not that I want someone other than the two major party dudes. And,
> yeah, that's a hard sell for most people, but I don't think going into a
> voting booth is going to make it any easier and will, in all likelihood,
> make it much more difficult.)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20121117/17e291d9/attachment.html>