Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

361

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 04, 2007, 01:52:39 AM »

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

I don't either.  Aggression mixes with intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity in a winner; lack of aggression, however, most certainly is an earmark of a loser.  Again, I dispute a nuclear or superlative definition of aggression, so, if you must, substitute my use of aggression with aggressiveness.  To do the best for yourself you must be aggressive, unless you consider sitting on the couch collecting welfare as the best you can do for yourself.

Are you writing about this word? 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ag·gres·sion      /əˈgrɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-gresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2.   any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3.   the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4.   Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.

362

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 04, 2007, 01:42:36 AM »

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

I don't either.  Aggression mixes with intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity in a winner; lack of aggression, however, most certainly is an earmark of a loser.  Again, I dispute a nuclear or superlative definition of aggression, so, if you must, substitute my use of aggression with aggressiveness.  To do the best for yourself you must be aggressive, unless you consider sitting on the couch collecting welfare as the best you can do for yourself.

[I'm sorry that I'm coming late to this, but I was involved in a different discussion on this same thread.]

You are confusing the word aggression with the word competition.

Edit: Oops, I see that was addressed in the next post.

363

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 04, 2007, 01:29:24 AM »

All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments.

But why are you defining them to be governments?

That's the general definition."Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.

364

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 03, 2007, 10:30:38 AM »

Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitimate.

But how did you determine it was a function of government?
I want to understand your rationale for assigning particular functions to the definition of govern.

All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments. Those organizations whose functions are of the type that are conventionally thought of as being the exclusive purview of the State are the ones that, until this artificial distinction is dismissed as an irrational prejudice, will need the preface voluntary when referring to them as governments.

That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.

They believe that the people have chosen to have a government, and thus it has a valid claim to your wealth, unless you are not using any services it provides.

They, especially, need to be taught what the word voluntary means as well as the moral necessity for human interaction to be on a consensual (voluntary) basis.

365

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 03, 2007, 05:43:10 AM »

There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.

How are you distinguishing a legitimate function of government from an illegitimate one?

Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitamate.

Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?

They mean a government that lets you leave it's jurisdiction, not one that you can decide not to pay and still keep your property.

That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.

Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.

366

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: April 01, 2007, 10:26:07 AM »

Calling voluntary government "enforcement" would not accurately describe all the legitimate functions of government and, so, would be very misleading.

What other legitimate functions are there? Rule setting? Controlling in general?

If the definition of govern is determined by it's legitimate functions, we need to be clear on those.

There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems  that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.

Why scrap a perfectly good word, just because one of its definitions, while related, is in a form you disapprove of?

Three reasons:

I disagree that the term government is merely a controlling/enforcing entity, I think aggression is implicit in the definition.

It's only implicit in the definition for the illegitimate form, namely, the State.

Most people understand the term government to mean the aggressive entity, not both the voluntary and aggressive ones.

Most people understand the concept of private government, but believe, that in the sphere of political organization, that it refers to the aggressive entity called the State. This is perfectly understandable, as the state is the ubiquitous type of political organization. If there where some true anarchic societies in the world, then people might start making the distinction between voluntary and aggressive governments, but how can we expect this to happen when the State is universally seen as the paradigm for political organization? We are, in effect, enslaved by a prejudicial misconception that is built into our common use of language. A society needs to be governed or it will collapse into chaos. This is why the public will never accept anarchy, until they understand the possibility and the virtue of voluntary government as a political (societal) organization.

By using the term voluntary government, most people will think you mean any government that lets you leave.

Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?

367

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: March 28, 2007, 09:34:52 PM »

What word would you use for an institution that governs the behavior of voluntary participants?

Govern can be defined to mean control, but all humans have an effect of control on each other. If it is defined to mean enforcement, why not simply use that term?

Why do you want to use one of the attributes of an entity as the label for the entity, when the entity already has a name that people recognize and have respect for? Calling voluntary government "enforcement" would not accurately describe all the legitimate functions of government and, so, would be very misleading. Why scrap a perfectly good word, just because one of its definitions, while related, is in a form you disapprove of? To make the usage clear, you need only preface it with the word voluntary, just as people preface the word anarchist with the word libertarian.

368

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: March 28, 2007, 02:00:24 AM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?

I've been told by a few folks, but I don't buy it, that's why it's conditional. Otherwise it would be called a universal law.

Exactly which folks?

My problem with saying it is conditional is that people will assume that it means it is conditional upon humans. I have the same problem with using the term government to sometimes mean voluntary institutions.

What word would you use for an institution that governs the behavior of voluntary participants? Surely, you don't think anarchy is an ungoverned free for all.

To gain credibility, anarchists need to distinguish legitimate forms of government from tyranny. Governments are institutions that regulate human interaction, for the purpose of enforcing rules of conduct, with the objective of minimising disputes and violence caused by dishonesty, misunderstanding, prejudice and hate. Tyranny (the State) is criminal gang behavior, dressed up as government, to give it a cloak of respectability. To speak exclusively of government as a tyranny, is to deny the possibility of a civilized society of rules without the "necessary" evil of aggression.

369

The Polling Pit / Re: Are Environmentalists really whackos?

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:55:20 PM »

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

By what means can she compel social control, if not by some form of state? Control (ownership of) land, collectively or individually, is the essence of the State.

Obviously.

Why do you think it's obvious? It is to me, but I thought that most libertarians were for the ownership of raw land.

Well she wants voluntary social control... I dunno how feasible that is but that's her stance. "The earth belongs to everyone." You know, that BenTucker/Georgist stuff.
I believe in the (de facto) ownership of land via homesteading.

You can have property rights in the use of a natural resource, but as you had nothing to do with the creation of that resource in the first place, nor can you trace the transfer of ownership back to the creator, you only have the moral right to prevent the use by others, if their intended use objectively interferes with your previously established use.

370

The Polling Pit / Re: Are Environmentalists really whackos?

« on: March 25, 2007, 07:15:33 PM »

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

By what means can she compel social control, if not by some form of state? Control (ownership of) land, collectively or individually, is the essence of the State.

Obviously.

Why do you think it's obvious? It is to me, but I thought that most libertarians were for the ownership of raw land.

371

The Polling Pit / Re: Are Environmentalists really whackos?

« on: March 25, 2007, 06:01:27 AM »

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

By what means can she compel social control, if not by some form of state? Control (ownership of) land, collectively or individually, is the essence of the State.

372

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: March 25, 2007, 05:53:50 AM »

It sounds like he may be confusing aggression with coercion.

He says:

no i am not
coercion means involuntary
YOU are the one who is confusing them

I often misuse the words force and coercion(The use of, or threat of force) in the same way as your friend, because people usually understand what I mean, but this is a lazy practice that I intend to end. Just explain to him the difference between aggressive force and defensive force. If necessary, just show him the definitions.

373

The Polling Pit / Re: Are Environmentalists really whackos?

« on: March 25, 2007, 05:33:26 AM »

See, the biggest problem is their belief that no one can own land. They don't seem to understand how that makes things so complicated and is so illogical, not to mention the whole homestead principle. If you take it as a given that no one can individually own land or like a forest or something, then what they say kind of makes sense... well at least until some of them start advocating force. Even if you don't believe that land can or should be privately owned, you shouldn't be forcing collective ownership. I have a friend who participates in Food Not Bombs. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but it all stems from this disagreement over the question of land. I dunno, some of them are nice people.

No, the problem is that they want ownership of land. They just want the State to own it directly, as opposed to granting the privilege of control to individuals and businesses. Both of those paradigms are two sides of the same coin, and are at the root of State monopoly power. It's the unearned ownership of raw land, at the expense of the right of people to freely create property rights in the use of land (to live freely on earth), that causes the most environmental mischief. You cannot expect monopoly owners to worry about the slaves they exploit, or the condition of the environment in which they are kept.

374

The Polling Pit / Re: Aggression

« on: March 25, 2007, 05:03:14 AM »

Arguing with a friend who thinks he's refuted the NAP/ZAP and replaced with a "CAP" - Chosen Aggression Principle. We argued for a while about it and he defines "aggression" in such a way that even if both parties consent to an interaction, it can be aggressive.

I thought everyone used my definition, where it had to be involuntary.

He says Friedman uses his definition.

What do you think it means?

It sounds like he may be confusing aggression with coercion.

375

The Polling Pit / Re: Free will?

« on: March 25, 2007, 04:48:31 AM »

Free will is necessary for the concept of the right to property, as all property derives from the right to self ownership. From a previous post:

"Again, there are different definitions of the word own. There is the moral right to control of something, the legal right to control of something and simply the control of something. Sometimes moral ownership will coincide with one or both of the other types.

The question of whether we can own ourselves boils down to whether we can have control over ourselves. If you believe in free will, then you will say yes. If free will is an illusion, then control of ourselves is an illusion and so self ownership doesn't exist. Without free will there are no choices to make and so no morality and no moral rights and so no right to self ownership and so no right to property.

I believe that free will, just like consciousness, exits, even though they seem to be impossible to explain. I have a direct experience of free will just as I directly experience consciousness. If consciousness is beyond explanation by the known laws of physics, then why wouldn't free will, a product of consciousness, also be beyond explanation? If you counter that consciousness and therefore free will are just illusions then I would ask you to contemplate what meaning is there to the word illusion, if there is no consciousness?

Anyway, without consciousness and free will, this whole discussion is meaningless.

If we think of consciousness as our self, then we can consider free will to be the expression of self ownership. When exercise of our free will is denied to us by coercion, we become the property ( in the legal or other non-moral sense ) of, or slave of another entity than ourselves, to the extent of this denial."