"So you don't believe that actions have consequences that can't be overridden by whim? You say you believe in universal moral law but you deny the universe's ability to enforce its own laws? Wouldn't that make them arbitrary and ... not ... laws? You may want to take a moment to really examine what you just wrote there and its implications. Or I'd be happy to walk through some of them with you."

This isn't about physical reality. This is about the rules that we set for our society. The universe is the adversary. We don't care about its wishes.

The universal moral law that I hint at has nothing to do with the universe itself, it has to do with the idea that logic is the same everywhere and that social rules should be the same everywhere as well. My argument is that these rules should be derived from axiomatic things everyone would accept as true, instead of being at the whim of current fads of the day. There should not be a different set of laws in different countries.

Punishment doesn't make any sense logically, and I already stated why I think that is. If you think my reasons don't make sense, feel free to argue why they are bad.

Regarding giving up decision making power, I wouldn't say much is given up in my view of it. You can't really claim other people making decisions without asking your permission is you giving anything up. The whole thing can function perfectly fine without "power" to tell other people what to do. If you make the wrong decision, you will get punished by the free market. There is no need for coercion.

I wouldn't call my view on the contract adversarial. I'm not sure what gave you the idea. Joint protection thing might be one of the reasons to enter into it but I wouldn't say that is the only one.

"Statists like to flaunt the misconception that only a state can provide law and order to society."

The premise behind the Declaration of Independence is that only those being ruled can instantiate a moral and lawful government because the power to rule must be delegated. A statist is an elitist who believes that power can be seized in order to coerce others into certain actions. Two very different means with the same end, yet it is the means which have moral implications.

"If we look at the history of the state..."

That's an interesting take on things. Here's my take:

Throughout its history, mankind has struggled with the concept of rulership and has experimented with all sorts of rules and conventions ordering and governing human interactions. The most simple form of government exists in the family, where parents rule over their children. As those families extended, societies tended to defer to patriarchal hierarchies for their governors. When one considers the natural segregation of duties within a family and the natural differences in the sexes, this isn't really unnatural as the women would have naturally gravitated to child-bearing, child-rearing, and a nurturing disposition while the men's greater physical attributes would have naturally gravitated them to be the providers and defenders. As families continued to grow and generations passed, the familial heads would have - of necessity - been forced to designate heirs to their natural authority.

Eventually, either due to dissatisfaction, envy, jealousy, size, etc. group after group splintered off and over time, eventually there began to be many individual groups of any number of sizes and predilections. Contentions inevitably arose and those which couldn't be solved peacefully turned to war. The victorious either returned to their own lands and rule, or got a taste for it and decided to expand their empires. As the groups consolidated either due to mutual pacts or force, it became too much for individuals to rule and so was born the bureaucracy, usually supported by armed guards loyal to the ruler. In the "expansionist"-minded societies, they used this justification - and the bureaucracies - in order to tax their societies in order to provide for the rulers and their cadres and their plans and wars.

As to the individual ideologies of these groups, there were clearly a vast array. Some preferred a strongly hierarchical structure with familiar ruling lines. Some revolved around loyalties and politics where the "strongest" vied for power. After several millennia in which virtually every concept of government had been tried, one group of people came up with a rather novel idea and formed their own Nation. They defended it with their "blood and sacred honor" and managed to win their independence and eventually rise into the greatest nation the world has ever known.

But there are always the envious and power-hungry. They hated the idea of a free people who chose for themselves. They longed to continue their rapaciousness and feudalism and so sought to undermine and overthrow this free nation. And they have slowly sought to destroy the principles which made this nation great. Right now, they threaten to throw this nation back into the chaos and disparity with the elitists at the helm. Time will only tell if they are successful.


"It is very difficult for me to argue with you guys regarding all this."

I think you confuse "argue with" and "persuade." In order to argue well one has to present a solid logical argument and in order to persuade the rational, one must present a better alternative. (I'm a state-certified debate judge: I've seen a fair share of good and bad arguments and counter-arguments. And I'll point out that most of the people on this forum are of substantially higher caliber of mind than your standard fare of internet trolls. Consider it a badge of honor to engage with us.)

It isn't that we agree with the massive and tyrannical state the US government has turned into. That's not it at all. The problem is that your anti-state ideology can't withstand the logical challenges presented to it. You can't fight organized crime with disorganization. It's alluded with with Ragnar in AS, but Rand doesn't present it as a strategy which wins. Instead, those who object to the looting of society bow out and form their own society of producers. You'll find tremendous support for those ideas here.

"My argument would be that something like the golden rule is indeed axiomatic."

The foundation for the Golden Rule assumes an intrinsic link between all of humanity which transcends humanity itself - some innate characteristic or commonality. In that way, it could be axiomatic. The difficulty for the atheist is that his ideology asserts that there is nothing intrinsic about a human being: that each is entirely derived from natural processes, etc. and is independent from any other. Do you begin to see the conundrum?

The red herring fallacy "is an attempt to reroute a discussion from its original topic and focus on something unrelated" (according to a search engine). That was certainly not my intention.

Statists like to flaunt the misconception that only a state can provide law and order to society. However, not only do I think it is blatantly untrue, but I think it is 'propaganda' used to justify state's existence. So, I accused you of pushing statist propaganda. That was not a misdirection.

If we look at the history of the state, it becomes clear how the state originated. The idea of 'government of the people by the people' is relatively recent idea, or, shall I say, 'propaganda'. The state manufactures consent these days to make it look like the people are in charge, so, I would argue the 'people' are still not in charge. Previously, there were kings claimed their authority by divine appointment. Religion was a useful tool for them. Sometimes they claimed the role of the 'protectors of the realm'. They used whatever worked. Those were weak claims, but worked due to the masses not being educated. However, as masses became educated and renounced religion, those claims no longer worked. So, the state came up with the self-governance scheme. Prior to all that in antiquity there existed war lords that raided settlements of farmers. Eventually, they decided to settle down and claim territory belonging to them. That is how monarchies began. You see, if we go back to the beginning of the state, it was all violence and trickery. The reason why these parasites exist though is because they are predators. They don't want to work. They want everybody as their slaves.

My problem with the state is not that it is 'government' but that it is 'illegitimate government'. It is illegitimate precisely because it is predatory.

I can imagine a society ruled by a set of rules that are logically derived. These would not be subject to the whims of monarchs or manipulated masses. The government in such a society would effectively be academia-like community in charge of discovering laws and a separate collection of organizations providing law enforcement services. This society would not have a 'state' as I would view it. There would not be any way for predation to sneak in.

I would agree with you that coercion is bad. I agree with you that certain people are at the root of coercion. I would say the lust for power is not there because of itself but because it allows predation. So, let's abolish 'power'. No one should be allowed to make rules but logic and reason.

It is very difficult for me to argue with you guys regarding all this. It is very obvious to me what is going on, but you guys appear to not get it. You guys don't want to be left alone 'against the brutes and brigands', so what do you do? You create a bigger brigand (the state)! Fuck me.

My argument would be that something like the golden rule is indeed axiomatic. Two parties agree to treat each other equally. Why would they not agree to such a thing? It would mean that one is on some level a slave to the other. Nobody would agree to being a slave, so, I think the only option is to agree to be on equal footing. The alternative is a state of war between the parties.

I don't think it matters if two parties are both humans. The only thing that matters is whether they have agency and can communicate to be able to establish the cooperative agreement.

My thinking leads me to conclude that we should not treat other humans as being part of the agreement if they demonstrate that they don't agree to our terms. Predatory entities, such as the state, should be considered to be hostile and should be at least defended against.

One thing of note that I keep thinking about and that you hinted at is as follows. A pact between a human and a fly (assuming they could communicate). The difference in capability between parties is so great that any cooperation with a fly may not matter to a human. The human may not benefit much from the services of a fly. I guess in that case no agreement will exist because the human has more important things to do. Sucks for the fly, but what can you do.

"I think the golden rule is not about physical equality, but the equality of treatment. It requires the ability to communicate and cooperate."

Completely agree. My point is that the Golden Rule itself isn't an axiom, i.e. it isn't self-evident. There is a reason why people should treat each other kindly - and I agree they should. But anything which isn't axiomatic must be derived logically in order to hold. That means we have to be able to link the concepts through either inductive or conclusive reasoning.

We can look at any object in the universe and describe it using color, texture, size, shape, etc. But what A) truly defines something as human and B) leads us to conclude that we should treat other humans with respect? Without a reference 100% external to humanity itself - something which supercedes the physical/external - the differences between two human beings (in anything from appearance to capability) knock the interpersonal balance askew. Without something to balance those scales, there is no way to equalize those differences and thereby infer an equality of station deserving of innate respect.

It's that equivalency there a step beyond human identification which has to be resolved. It provides a critical context for the human interaction which follows.

"But how does one conclude the existence of a common link between people without a linking third party of significance? It's certainly not an axiomatic assertion: it must be derived. And the third party can't be simply another human being or you run into reductio ad absurdum..."

I thought about this for a while but I can't understand your point here.

I think the golden rule is not about physical equality, but the equality of treatment. It requires the ability to communicate and cooperate.

Both parties agree to cooperate fairly (equally). The common link is the understanding that if you cooperate, you both get more out of it then if you did not cooperate. Both of you don't even have to be human. It might be a human and a dog. The important thing is that both parties understand that cooperation is better than not and communicate to each other about wanting to make a pact. The golden rule is just a statement about the nature of the pact.

You have a very adversarial view of societal contracts. No rational person enters into one with the intent of subjecting themselves to tyranny. The whole reason they do so is to provide joint protection against such action.

"There is no need to give up decision making power."

Be specific when making claims like this. I agree that the benefits of socialization and specialization are not to be underestimated. But really think about how much "decision-making" authority one really gives up when agreeing to live in a society.

"By the way, I think that retribution/punishment is immoral and doesn't make any sense."

So you don't believe that actions have consequences that can't be overridden by whim? You say you believe in universal moral law but you deny the universe's ability to enforce its own laws? Wouldn't that make them arbitrary and ... not ... laws? You may want to take a moment to really examine what you just wrote there and its implications. Or I'd be happy to walk through some of them with you.

"Anarchy is no rulers, nobody telling me what to do."

That's propaganda. It implies that someone telling you what to do is equivalent to them forcing you to do it. It's a victimhood mentality and in reality denies both free will and free speech - not to mention the engagement of the rational mind.

Parents tell their kids what to do all the time. I'm a parent and my experience is superior to that of my children. And when I tell them to clean up their messes, not stand on the couches, and not put things into electrical sockets it isn't because I'm a tyrant over my kids, but because their infantile minds have little conceptual grasp on the greater picture. As they mature and begin to engage their reason, it becomes easier for me to explain to them why certain things are bad. And I want them to comprehend this. I'd much rather they do things because they understand the underlying moral rationale, but I also accept the reality that they have to want to understand. (Many - even adults - don't want to.)

"I think anarchy exists already."

I agree, though perhaps not in the same sense you do. Anarchy exists when some people seek to be exempted from the enforcement of the same laws they seek to inflict on others. Societies which permit anarchy - especially among those in positions of societal power - are ripe for their own destruction. I fear that America is soon going to face this crossroad.

I don't see the 'societal pact' as a compromise. I see it more of an agreement to cooperate, not screw each other over and not to prey on each other.

The reason why this pact is important is it increases productivity and wealth. There is really no need to compromise. You are actually gaining much more by participating than by not participating. There is no need to give up decision making power.

By the way, I think that retribution/punishment is immoral and doesn't make any sense. By punishing someone, not only are you causing disproportional damage to them, but you are also causing damage (money/time/risk) to yourself without any way to get back what was lost.

You have the right to recover damages from the perpetrator and to also to recover funds spent bringing them to 'justice'. If they need mental help/rehabilitation, they might need to pay for that too. However, it would be immoral to make them suffer more loss than the above.

I think anarchy exists already, for example, between states themselves. There is no state above the states. The whole idea of anarchy not working or something is statist propaganda. Anarchy is no rulers, nobody telling me what to do. I see anarchy as freedom and the lack of slavery.

The reason why people are out to mug each other is, they are engaging in predation. They are violating the pact. They should (and will) be mugged to oblivion as society collapses and they will see how that turns out for them.

A ruler is not necessary to force everyone into participating in the pact. You can tell by logic and reason that participation in the pact is vital.

Actions may be immoral, entities can not. The fact of their very existence proves their compatibility with reality. (For a great sidebar, I recommend reading the conjecture of Plato in The Republic where he debates the existence of capricious gods such as those in the Greek Pantheon.)

"Non-coercive monopolies are just..."

You just validated my point. Your gripe is with the boogeyman of "government" not monopolies per se.

"There is competition with utilities, toll roads, etc."

Never said there couldn't be, just that in some cases they are impractical. Roads are a classic example because real estate is an extremely constrained resource. Here's another example to consider: electromagnetic radiation, i.e. radio waves. Without a single governing authority, you wouldn't have wi-fi or even airplanes...

"The owner of the road should decide what rules would apply there. Let the free market decide things like which side of the road to drive on."

It's an interesting sentiment, but completely devoid of practicality. Stop thinking in sound bites and take time to completely study the options.

"You cannot simply force somebody to behave how you (or the majority of voters) want."

You confuse laws with law enforcement. You are absolutely right that no one can force you to do anything. All they can do is punish you for non-compliance. The real question is whether or not the law in question is just, i.e. founded upon a correct moral principle. If it is, rebellion against it is simply that - rebellion out of ignorance/arrogance.

"So, you are saying that because humans are not perfect, we must make laws on a whim."

Please re-read what I wrote. I said that we should found laws upon universal moral principles. Those aren't whims. But in some cases - such as determining which side of the road to drive on - the laws are arbitrary to a large degree. It really doesn't matter which side one drives on nearly so much as that everyone agrees to the same rules of driving. Some laws are moral laws. Others are there just to organize/cooperate/solve problems.

"All you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities."

I'm open for discussion, but I expect an argument to be followed with reasoning and example rather than hyperbole and invective.

"I suspect the founders were brainwashed by the crown, which is why they couldn't imagine a world without the state."

Such a belief stems from the most gross ignorance. I'd suggest reading some history such as the debates of the First Continental Congress - or the Second. Another excellent work providing historical context I recommend is the first and second volumes of the Oxford History of the United States. They cover the pre-colonial and colonial periods up to 1808 in extraordinary detail while providing extensive reference material.

Statist propaganda? I must be winning on the logical front if your resort is a red herring fallacy.

"People agreeing to band together and agreeing upon norms and conventions of behavior which benefit everyone is one thing. A state is something else entirely."

Please explain to me how you have a civilization/society without a government. The very effort of creating a society lays out the rules for its existence - most particularly the rules for membership and discipline (along with the means for such). It inherently recognizes and authorizes leadership and governing authority from among its membership. That's precisely what was laid out in the Declaration of Independence and established in the Constitution. Every nation worldwide has a governing document of this kind. Every tribal entity which has ever existed has had a verbal agreement along these lines. Unless you can explain how to have a society _without a government, your argument lacks all foundation and consequently must be acknowledged as void.

"The state forces itself onto people..."

Let's clarify significantly. The State is an ephemeral boogeyman consisting of what? People. Tyranny consists of people trying to coerce other people - and likely (ab)using their authority to do it. Look at any conflict and you have coercion by at least one of the parties. The resolution of that coercion can either be decided peacefully according to an acceptable adjudication framework (within a society or nation) or it can be decided through armed force (between societies or nations).

Coercion and tyranny exist regardless of government's presence or absence: they are a result of individual people acting on their greed and lust. A person alone (without society) is left to fend for himself/herself against the brutes and brigands (which interestingly enough have their own hierarchy, a.k.a. government). What's the alternative? Grouping together for mutual defense, etc., i.e. forming a society. But just like a firearm doesn't kill people, neither do governments. People - particularly people who lust for power - are the root of coercion.

Those who oppose statism don't have to do anything. But if they want to make a difference, they can start by totally withdrawing their support for our corporate-dominated, crony-infested political and economic system masquerading as a free society.

"Abolish the state and you abolish civilization."
See, that's statist propaganda right there.

The state is the most powerful criminal organization that takes over the civilization by force. There is only one state because it has taken over all the others.

Actually, the western civilization has multiple states but I can see them eventually merging.

People agreeing to band together and agreeing upon norms and conventions of behavior which benefit everyone is one thing. A state is something else entirely. At least that is what I observe. The state forces itself onto people and, eventually, things are done that nobody would agree with and which benefit nobody but the parasites. Example: war, confiscation of property.

You're welcome to believe and advocate for your point of view. We only deepen our understanding when it is challenged and we have to think about it. The key, however, is that if one wishes to persuade someone to adopt a different viewpoint, one has to put forth a cogent argument for such. Simply asserting that the other party is mistaken eliminates any potentially thoughtful discussion.

Regarding immigration, as soon as one recognizes that societies exist and that some societies may have different rules, you have automatically created borders denoting where a given society's jurisdiction lies. It's an inherent byproduct and not nearly so arbitrary as one may think.

"You can't claim huge parts of Earth and then decree nobody else touch it."

Why not? Ownership is a pre-eminent claim on usage of something. I derive its necessity in my book. But to the point, there is the claim, and then there is the enforcement of that claim. Two very different aspects of the topic; both entirely germane to the discussion...

Regarding illegal immigration, these people are coming because they are repressed in their own countries and being offered free stuff in ours. No disagreement there. The thing to realize is that they have no right to join our society without our agreement. That's why its illegal. They're trying to force their way into our society - most notably our pocketbooks! Once one realizes that these are aggressors/thieves intentionally flouting our laws (despite the ridiculous non-enforcement under the current regime) one starts realizing that these are precisely the kind of people we don't want in our nation at all. If they aren't willing to abide by the rules of naturalization and guest entry, what other rules will they be inclined to ignore at our expense? Studies have shown an awful lot, most notably drug and sex trafficking.

As to the notion of "private" enforcement, what aspect would make it any different than the existing Border Patrol? Seriously. Simply putting the word "private" before something isn't enough. The authority and funding would still have to originate from the People. And when The People get together and agree upon a compact to address a problem... That's government one way or the other.

Civilization inherently belies a "state" of some kind. Civilization only exists because people agree to band together and agree upon norms and conventions of behavior which benefit everyone. Abolish the state and you abolish civilization.

I wouldn't object to having a societal contract one has to sign when one turns 18 prior to voting which outlined the duties and benefits of being a citizen. Problem is what do you do with the people who don't want to sign? You pretty much have to deport them, but to where? They aren't citizens of any other nation...

But how does one conclude the existence of a common link between people without a linking third party of significance? It's certainly not an axiomatic assertion: it must be derived. And the third party can't be simply another human being or you run into reductio ad absurdum...

When one starts with just what one can observe, one may only make potential relationship decisions based on the external/observable. The inherent quandary is that the Golden Rule regarding relationships assumes an innate equality even in the face of external inequality. I can look at someone else and observe them and conclude in seconds that they are not equivalent to myself. Similar, but not equivalent. One might take the cautious approach and assume that the differences place one's self at a disadvantage, but certainly not on equal footing. Thus the conclusion of might makes right.

If you can see something I don't, please chime in.

If you want to exile yourself from society, that's up to you. But at some point in order for society to exist at all one has to agree to compromise. The entire idea behind a societal pact is that everyone agrees to give up some pieces of their individual decision-making in order to focus on other areas. You give up the right to take retribution into your own hands in exchange for not having to worry that everyone else is out to mug you and take your stuff for example.

Anarchy sounds good until one actually tries it and discovers that it is a lousy basis for society.

"On the contrary, Madison's writings on the matter indicate it was deliberate choice. The Founders left the matter vague to maximize the individual pursuit of religion and speech, but made it clear that they supported a framework of moral absolutes that humanity could investigate and adopt, but could not invent or circumvent."
Meh....

By the way, you wouldn't want the majority to vote on forcing you to do something, so, don't vote on forcing others to do what you want others to do. Hence, no democracy or even representative democracy!

If one was to create a system of universal laws, one has to begin with some initial assumptions/axioms, just like with any logic.

You would pick a set of assumptions that are so universal that nobody in their right mind would argue with.

One idea is the golden rule (do onto others). It has been known to come about in multiple cultures independently. I think everybody would agree with it.

You can come up with a sort of an inverse of the golden rule:
Don't do to others that you don't want others to do to you.

This will give you things like:
No violence
No fraud
No murder
No theft

"Might makes right" would violate this because you don't want someone more powerful to force something on you, so it would be wrong for you to force something on someone else less powerful.

It appears that the non-aggression principle and voluntarism would be derived from the golden rule, correct me if I am wrong.

The equal rights idea also is somewhat related to this.

Self-defense would be allowed, which is how you would enforce these laws.

When I say 'state' I mean 'government', or, loosely, 'nation' or 'country'.

I thought about immigration for a while and I decided that you guys are in the wrong here.

I am not completely sure about borders yet, but I suspect that maybe they shouldn't exist.

The question of what is property is an interesting one but probably out of scope of this post. Let's assume that we have arrived at some universal provable definition of property for the purpose of this discussion.

You can't claim huge parts of Earth and then decree nobody else touch it. I suspect this is probably immoral. If the migrants follow the law (the universal one, not the one that you made up) then I think it is fine that they are left to their own devices.

I think immigrants are 'invading' because of the situation created by the states. On one hand they are being financially repressed / predated upon in their own countries. On the other hand, they are given a lot of unearned goodies in the US. No wonder they 'invade'. You guys should work on wealth redistribution / state predation in the US and abroad, I think that will solve your invasion problem.

I think that illegal migrants would likely break the law, which is why they would be dealt with by the private right protection organizations. The organization that would have jurisdiction would probably be the one getting paid by the victim of the crime. Regardless, these organizations would not have their own laws. They would enforce the universal one, proven by math and logic, probably by some academic long ago not even part of their organization. If they don't then they are likely going to have trouble with another right-protecting organization paid by the opposing party. I guess that's how it works now with states/nations, except for trouble happening all the time precisely for the reason of not having a common law across states/nations.

You see, my way is an improvement on the current situation. It seems you are arguing against having multiple jurisdictions but that is what is going on now with multiple states/nations. The one additional unfortunate thing is these states are actually coercive mafia organizations.

Imagine having no wars... what a crazy thought!

The owner of the road should decide what rules would apply there. Let the free market decide things like which side of the road to drive on.

You cannot simply force somebody to behave how you (or the majority of voters) want. This is immoral coercion. You have to prove by logic and reason that they must follow your law because otherwise some universal basic law that even they agree with is broken.

So, you are saying that because humans are not perfect, we must make laws on a whim. I don't follow that logic. If we are so fallible, what makes you so sure that our decided-on-a-whim laws are not wrong?

Don't be ridiculous. It is not so hard. I am one person (without a philosophy background, other than the odd college class) and I was able to work out a few things by myself, one being that you guys are all crazy... :) I even had that suspicion when I was a kid. All you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities.

Any confusion will eventually work itself out. It is better than bowing down to the word of a single long-dead corrupt judge and having to deal with corrupt cops.

I suspect the founders were brainwashed by the crown, which is why they couldn't imagine a world without the state.