In addition to her brilliance on economic matters, Warren is a pure bomb bomb bomb ’em all Neocon on foreign affairs, including Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
Here’s a piece in Stars and Stripes concerning the administration’s use of”contractors” in Iraq instead of “boots on the ground.” Still, it boils down to using mercenaries and adds up to the same thing.
The video encapsulates another sinister aspect of democratic statism, of seeking power over honesty.
The elected can take credit for “good” activities and portray the image that they were elected to make such decisions, and they can blame consensus and majority beliefs for “bad” activities and portray the image that they were just doing what the consensus wanted.
You can never sue a politician for lying. You can ALWAYS sue your private contractor for mere breach of contract.
Actually, you can never sue a politician even for wiping out your town. And that, my friends, is why the NAP an absurd fringe idea and the statists are mainstream and “normal”.
Oh you can sue politicians, it is just that 999/1000 it will get buried under a pile of “Sure, we’ll get right on that. In the meantime, you must continue to hold up you side of this mandatory arrangement.”
The idea that people should not aggress against others is a very mainstream idea.
It’s even a part of ‘international law’:
“A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of “might makes right”, under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.”
“The prince must be honest and decent as far as he can and he must certainly uphold the precepts of Christian ethics. He must be just and if possible popular. But he had better be feared than loved. He dare not let ethics keep him from doing whatever evil must be done to preserve himself and the state.
Machiavelli knew that states can only exist with treachery, unethical behavior, and evil. States exist in and for themselves, in and for whoever wields it. It is not an activity for the common good, or social welfare, or any universal benevolent purpose. It is for some to gain wealth and power by force against everyone else. In IDEA, that when made a code of conduct, results in social parasitism.
If 51% of people at the time think you have the right to do so, do you think you have the right? Or if this 51% decides slavery for the other 49% is okay, do you agree with that too?
If it is my last apple, the absence of which will lead to me starving to death, then yes. If one of us is to die from starvation, I think justice is served if I live, since it is my apple.
Do I have a right to set the law of my land, including clear declarations of “Don’t trespass or you will be shot at”? Yes.
Do I think it is *always* moral to shoot at apple thieves such that I have to answer yes or no to “Do I have a right to kill apple thieves?” No.
Why should law making on land change depending on how many people jointly own that land?
Suppose that on “my” land, which is quite large, and has 1000 inhabitants, there is a vote on the laws of the land. Would that make the SAME law moral and justified?
If not, why not? Are you telling me that YOU should be the law maker over this “democratic” territory?
——–
razer:
The problem with statism is that for some reason, they accept the same laws as ancapistan laws, as long as the land owners are greater than one person. More than one joint land owner voting to make the laws of that land? Moral and just. One person owner making that same law on their land? Immoral and unjust.
If you notice, their foundation is not pro-morality, or pro-justice, but rather, just ANTI-individualism. Period.
“do you think you have the right to kill someone who steals an apple on your land?”
Philippe, it gets more complicated if the homeowner catches someone and wants to use force to prevent the initiation of theft, but after the fact, no, standard Rothbardian property rights do NOT allow you to kill an apple thief. At most you could take an apple back, then take an additional apple in order to violate the thief’s rights as much as he violated yours.
This is Rothbard’s (in)famous “two teeth for a tooth” dictum, explained here.
I’m not saying I endorse it, but you seem to think that standard an-cap says you can shoot anyone for the mildest infraction. No, that’s not correct.
Saying that someone has the right to make rules on their property doesn’t mean there aren’t limits when said property conflicts with someone else’s property. If a thief walks onto my property, he still has a property right in himself – he has the right to make rules on his own body just as I have the right to make rules on my land. If I tell him to get off my land, and he refuses, then he is clearly violating my rights. I can then use limited violence to get him off my land and restore any lost value. If I do any more than what I have to in order to get him off, then I have clearly violated his property rights and I would then also be an aggressor.
Which brings an important point that many pro-state thinkers seem to be ignoring (my comment on Callahan’s blog was never even approved, unfortunately). Even if the state did own all the land in this entire country (which is far beyond what most people think), it would still be violating rights of people living here constantly. Caging someone for months for petty crimes is ridiculous; you don’t suddenly gain that power over someone’s body just because they didn’t follow one of your house rules. And you certainly don’t have the right to attack people that are not on your property. The US government has murdered so many innocents that even if it did own all of the land in the US, it has since lost all right to it – just like any other criminal or criminal organization would if they mass-murdered people.
you seem to have missed the point. Even you, as an ancap, believe that law determines property rights. You said as much with your comments, such as:
“Saying that someone has the right to make rules on their property doesn’t mean there aren’t limits when said property conflicts with someone else’s property”
In Ethics of Liberty: “We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of “proportionality.””
Community pressure, prior laws in the community before one moves in; insurance premiums going up as protection is private if someone killed someone for just an apple.
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society tends to lead towards ethnic strife. The more “public goods” and the more ethnic and cultural divisions in a democracy tend to cause more trouble. I predicted this with the invasion of Iraq and part of the horrible results of that invasion can be traced to inflicting a big government democracy upon Iraq. As predicted, the largest ethnic group, the Shia, set about owning the government and all of its assets.
I think a good case could be made that the first such democratic slaughter-fest was the US Civil War. We know that the north really didn’t care much about the fate of black people but a case can be made that the northerners just hated the guts of southerners and got some of it out their system by killing the southerners’ dogs. Northerners still hate southerners.
I know that the “social democrats” will complain. But the rule apples where you have different groups in society who want to inflict their version of the truth on everyone else and where the result is intolerable for the losing minority. We’re seeing it now in the USA where socially conservative and socially liberal groups want to inflict their version of the wholesome life upon the other using SWAT teams, fines and prison. Politicians always appear who rile up their group with promises to inflict the state upon and spank the hated “other”. That cannot happen if violations of private property and person are prohibited and that prohibition is enforced.
“History shows that democratic stability and cultural diversity are often incompatible in the postindependence politics of many plural societies. Furthermore, intense ethnic conflict frequently erupts shortly after native peoples obtain their independence. Those scholars who observed a multiethnic nationalist movement reported interethnic cooperation and forecast its continuance. On the other hand, those who studied plural societies in the postindependence period reported interethnic competition and conflict. Thus, the theories resulting from observations in these two different time periods have left us with an inconsistent account of politics in the plural society.”
and more
“Our review of ethnic politics in a variety of countries, not to mention the problems that presently confront the urban areas in America or French Canada (Quebec), or a growing ethnocentrism in Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, paints a bleak picture. A future defined by ethnic harmony appears to be most unlikely in the view that parts one and two of this book put forth.”
finally, and most pertinently:
“Conclusions are often banal and trite. Important theoretical questions are either begged or isolated as topics for future research. We propose neither to move cautiously towards the formation of a few tentative hypotheses, to allude to problems of measurement, nor to get lost in a maze of methodological discussion (which is very often beside the point). Instead we ask, is the resolution of intense but conflicting preferences in the plural society manageable in a democratic framework? We think not.”
These passages or from the “Conclusion” chapter of the book.
Roddis is right, Philippe is wrong.
Philippe either did not read the book and lied about it reading it, or he did read the book but his comprehension of it is wrong.
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
Plural society = Ethic lines as almost exclusive grounds for politics.
That is what the authors conclude cannot be managed with democracy. They argue that trying to force democracy across such ethnic factions tends to lead to ethnic strife, which is the point Roddis referred to, which you said “Is not the conclusion the authors make.”
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
This is clearly not the same thing as “Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” (as per Bob Roddis).
Sure it is. Roddis noted after that quote: “The more “public goods” and the more ethnic and cultural divisions in a democracy tend to cause more trouble.”
Roddis is talking about the very “plural” society criteria the authors note.
“I predicted this with the invasion of Iraq and part of the horrible results of that invasion can be traced to inflicting a big government democracy upon Iraq.”
Iraq prior to the invasion (and still relevant today) was largely characterized by ethic plurality along the “political” lines defined by the authors. The Shias and Sunnis were politically sectarian and were and are constantly hostile towards each other under the “Iraq” nation state banner. Two separate states would have drastically reduced the conflict.
“So, mf, do you think that
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
is the same as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.””
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society as understood by Roddis as the rest of his post makes clear, yes, they are the same.
“You might be right, but you haven’t answered my question.”
I did answer it. I said that very sentence Roddis used: ““Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”” is, as Roddis understood it, the same as the other quote you posted.
If you understood that sentence differently, then that is not an issue of the argument being made here. It is something for you to deal with.
“So you are attempting to extricate yourself by blah blah blahing.”
No, I am just showing you that you misread Roddis.
You seem to be unable to admit you did misread him, and are now trying to assert that there is one and only one “proper” (i.e. what you personally believe that sentence means) meaning of that sentence.
Those two sentences do in fact refer to the same thing, which was Roddis’ point.
I notice that when you have been shown to have made a mistake, you argue over semantics and want to save your original claim by changing the definition away from what it actually us, to a way that would make you turn out right after all. As usual.
You will not admit you misread him, because “it pains you to do so.”
I explained how, and instead of you continuing with that, you turned it all around and asked me if two sentences mean the same thing.
Those two sentences mean the same thing as Roddis explained. When Roddis said “multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” he meant what the authors meant by “the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines”.
You want to pretend you were right to claim the authors did not make the first claim by insisting that there is only one “approved” meaning of that first sentence.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect people to interpret Roddis’s comment in the light of Roddis’s peculiar intepretations (by peculiar I mean particular to him).
If Bob means that “multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” is the same as “Ethnic lines as almost exclusive grounds for politics.” as MF claims he is very likely to be mis-understood, because that is not what the words mean to most other people. Multi ethnic he could get away with, but multicultural has a very well used meaning that is quite distinct from that of plural used above.
It seems likely that he was more likely to be extrapolating. In an exclusively ethnic case, there are these demonstrable problems, therefore in less extreme cases there will be similar but less extreme problems. Otherwise, even if he did mean what MF claims he meant, it is a point with no relevance to what most people understand by multi cultural society.
I am sure multiculturism has its reasonable objections, but from the quoted bits of the book from MF it seems that this particular book is not making a case about them, but rather a different category of plural countries.
As I explained to Philippe, you have to read the whole of Roddis’ post to know what he means by that sentence.
I am sure you have heard of the faux pas of “quoting people out of context”, right? Well, when you write that sentence on its own, stripped from the context, then any understanding of that sentence according to ” what most people would think it means” is not actually a good argument of showing how that person is choosing the wrong words.
Some people have the unfortunate habit of quoting one sentence fom what people write, and form an entire response based on an understanding of that sentence in isolation.
Yes, you’re right, the authors are talking about a fairly restricted criteria of what constitutes “plural.”. But if you notice, Roddis never said social democracy leads to “significant” or “major” ethnic strife. He just said strife. That includes everything from minor to major, and he said the more culturally diverse a territory becomes, which I read as including diversity in political views, but not because I personally think cultural diversity necessarily leads to or implies political view diversity, but because that is what I think Roddis is saying, the more strife results from imposing democracy on all cultures lumped under one democratic control center.
I think the list Roddis gave of examples of plural society factions is accurate, if we include cultural diversity in with ethnic diversity, since after all ethnic diversity in terms of people’s actions is not unlike cultural diversity.
I will go further and submit that the reason imposing democracy on a plural society (as the authors define it) leads to plural strife, which it seems none of us disagree with, is the same exact reason why imposing democracy on INDIVIDUALS leads to individual to individual strife.
I think individuals are sufficiently diverse from each other that imposing a democracy on individuals leads to strife.
Many people identify differences among people according to group differences, like ethnicity, culture, gender, race, and so on. But I think differences go right down to the individual level.
For example, I am sufficiently different from you and your family that should anyone impose democracy on us, you and I would have conflict imposed on us, because whatever is imposed, will not be tailored to at least one of us, and probably both of us.
Only libertarians, specifically anarcho-capitalists, respect the individual enough to even recognize this in everyday debating and discussion. Everyone else thinks of differences between people as residing in the Platonic ideal world of holistic abstract groups. It is not just ethnicity, gender, race that this is done. It is also done with economic classes, and wealth/income levels. Imposing democratic rules and laws that target specific economic classes, invariably leads to class conflict.
I think disrespecting individual differences, ignoring them, invariably leads to victimizing individuals from one’s group oriented “help.” We see it so often. Good intentions having bad outcomes because the intention was to benefit one group, which must come at the expense of those not in that group.
Tailoring political solutions that benefit individuals has no necessary exploitation of others, because everyone is an individual! Indivodually tailored political solutions requires anarcho-capitalism. This will eliminate politically causes conflict, and thus reduce the totality of all conflict.
I won’t go too far down the rabbit hole, suffice to say the argument was not about whether Roddis’ opinion was right, but whether what he said was the conclusion of the book. It strikes me that Roddis went beyond what the quotes given here indicate the book said.
The 1972 edition of the book can be downloaded for free (about 12 MB). Here are some of the definitions and conclusions.
Page 20
To summarize, A SOCIETY IS PLURAL IF IT IS CULTURALLY DIVERSE AND IF ITS CULTURAL SECTIONS ARE ORGANIZED INTO COHESIVE POLITICAL SECTIONS. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation.
(Rx) Prescriptions for the Plural Society:
Some Applications of the Theory
Page 216 4. Restrictions on the scope of government. Public goods in the plural society often become the preserve of the advantaged political community and tend to be viewed as public bads by those communities excluded from power. Since the provision of public goods by the state is its primary raison d’etre, regime legitimacy often suffers when public funds are used to provide communal goods. If our theory is sound, an agreement to minimize the scope of public goods — and a reliance on the free market — should tone down the invidious quality of ethnic politics in the plural society.
Page 217 A Final Question
Conclusions are often banal and trite. Important theoretical questions are either begged or isolated as topics for future research. We propose neither to move cautiously towards the formation of a few tentative hypotheses, to allude to problems of measurement, nor to get lost in a maze of methodological discussion (which is very often beside the point). Instead we ask, is the resolution of intense but conflicting preferences in the plural society manageable in a democratic framework?
Make a false claim, then insist that the definitions used were wrong, so that your initially false claim can be turned into a correct claim by using the “approved” Philippe definitions.
Best part is we never know what definitions are until he makes a false claim. Then suddenly definitions become important.
The source of your confusion and misreading is you insisting that “Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” somehow cannot mean a plural society as the authors define it.
You’re thinking of the “pluralistic society”, of various ethnic groups, where within a given ethnic group there is not significant political agreement, such as the example given of Italian-Americans.
Roddis’ point is the author’s point, that democracy leads to ethnic strife in plural societies where various ethnic groups DO significantly agree politically (and differently compared to other ethnic groups).
You’re just thinking of the scenario of people of many different ethnicities all sitting around the campfire singing “slightly left of center” kumbaya songs of brotherhood and sharing.
Roddis is not talking about that. You are misreading him, and you can’t admit it.
The definitions are clearly stated in the book. I used the definitions correctly and stated the conclusions correctly. I provided a link for the entire book. What else can I say or do?
Page 19
The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines. To put the emphasis differently, in the plural society — but not in the pluralistic society — the overwhelming preponderance of political conflicts is perceived in ethnic terms. Permanent ethnic communities acting cohesively on nearly all political issues determine a plural society and distinguish it from a culturally {p. 20} heterogeneous, nonplural society. In pluralistic countries, where coalitions often vary from issue to issue, the cultural categories tend neither to be carefully demarcated nor always politically salient. Italian-Americans, for example, though they may vote cohesively on some issues, often divide on a great many others. And, in the United States, Italian and Irish highway contractors view themselves as businessmen, not ethnic representatives, in competition.
To summarize, a society is plural if it is culturally diverse and if its cultural sections are organized into cohesive political sections. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation. Politically organized cultural sections, communally based political parties, the partitioning of major social groups (e.g., labor unions) into culturally homogeneous subgroups, and political appeals emphasizing primordial sentiments serve as unambiguous indicators of a plural society.
Pursuant to this definition, Northerners vs southerners during the civil war are covered because of their opposing cultures. Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian and/or are Orthodox vs Western Ukrainians who speak Ukrainian and are Catholic are covered. Shia vs Sunni are covered. Today, northern liberal atheists vs. southern evangelicals are covered.
I’m truly sick to death of our opponents obfuscating and distorting every single word we say because they know they have no other method for refuting us.
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines“
“northern liberal atheists vs. southern evangelicals”
For some strange reason you think that you can corral these examples into an argument against “multi-cultural social democracy”, which you hate to begin with.
I genuinely don’t know how a brain could so malfunction that it would begin so see such patterns in the ether.
Violating dinner conversation etiquette, you are nothing but liar.
To summarize, a society is plural if it is culturally diverse and if its cultural sections are organized into cohesive political sections. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation.
Philippe will do anything to distort the plain language of a point he has lost.
“I genuinely don’t know how a brain could so malfunction that it would begin so see such patterns in the ether.”
His brain isn’t malfunctioning, your understanding is flawed and you cannot admit it.
All those examples in quotes are examples of “plural” distinctions.
He did not “corral” them into “multi-cultural social democracy.” He was giving a list so as to help you understand what he meant, and what the authors wrote.
The politician will find that obscuring the truth and shaping reality and public beliefs is easier (lower cost to him) when the situation involved is more complex, when the public and media know less about it, when it cannot be easily observed by the public, and when he has better control over the flow of information
An overseas war meets these conditions. Global warming fills the bill, until there is a series of cold winters. Complex financial matters fill the bill. A complex health insurance scheme fills the bill until some people experience its high costs. The medical benefits of some remedy will be hard for the public to see and assess. The leaders of a government will choose areas of control partly on the basis of their capacity to paint the picture that enhances them and their powers, and that will be in areas of greatest complexity and opaqueness to the public in which these leaders will have a greater opportunity to shape the reality as they see fit.
Based on their policies. Right now even if a politician reads a nice script before the election, following it after the election is altogether another matter.
I will concede that all of the many case studies in the book concern what we would see as “traditional” ethnic differences. Imposing social democracy upon such societies is dangerous.That’s the point that should be addressed because it destroys the viability of social democracy all by itself. I was expanding that analysis to include mere (but severe) “cultural differences” but employing the broad definition of a “plural society” from the book. The north and south may come from the same genetic pool but one group’s government-imposed economic “good” was the others’ economic “bad”.
This is like all of the other attacks by the hostiles where instead of discussing the actual point made, hairs are relentless split, whether like on this post or just fussing about whether runaway slaves were returned to the Confederacy as opposed to Washington DC (which is actually worse).
Of course it’s Obama’s decision. Obama could have extinguished the Islamic State in January of this year. He didn’t. This is almost certainly because he wanted it to expand. Whatever Obama’s doing in Iraq, it’s certainly 100% his decision. Perhaps Obama wants to fight the Iraq war again, only this time, winning it, thus showing the Republicans he’s beaten them at their own game against a much more formidable enemy. I don’t see this as likely, because, as the last few weeks has shown, Obama is perfectly willing to make symbolic strikes at the Islamic State while only making symbolic gains. He has no intention of destroying it with any speed. I think the Islamic State’s rule of Raqqa will last another nine months, at least.
This reminds me of this video showing Obama’s lie during the 2012 campaign, repeated in almost every campaign speech, that he would “pay down our debt” (towards the end of the video it shows several clips of “pay down our debt”), which for some reason his opposition failed to bother going after the way they should:
Lol, you guys better hope Elizabeth Warren isn’t the next POTUS.
In addition to her brilliance on economic matters, Warren is a pure bomb bomb bomb ’em all Neocon on foreign affairs, including Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
http://www.liberalsforisrael.org/elizabeth-warren-on-israel-and-iran.html
Here’s a piece in Stars and Stripes concerning the administration’s use of”contractors” in Iraq instead of “boots on the ground.” Still, it boils down to using mercenaries and adds up to the same thing.
http://www.stripes.com/news/in-place-of-boots-on-the-ground-us-seeks-contractors-for-iraq-1.301798
The video encapsulates another sinister aspect of democratic statism, of seeking power over honesty.
The elected can take credit for “good” activities and portray the image that they were elected to make such decisions, and they can blame consensus and majority beliefs for “bad” activities and portray the image that they were just doing what the consensus wanted.
You can never sue a politician for lying. You can ALWAYS sue your private contractor for mere breach of contract.
Actually, you can never sue a politician even for wiping out your town. And that, my friends, is why the NAP an absurd fringe idea and the statists are mainstream and “normal”.
Oh you can sue politicians, it is just that 999/1000 it will get buried under a pile of “Sure, we’ll get right on that. In the meantime, you must continue to hold up you side of this mandatory arrangement.”
“the NAP an absurd fringe idea”
The idea that people should not aggress against others is a very mainstream idea.
It’s even a part of ‘international law’:
“A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of “might makes right”, under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
The “Bionic Mosquito” explores the growth of the idea of “the state” which isn’t really all that old:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-state-grows-up.html
“The prince must be honest and decent as far as he can and he must certainly uphold the precepts of Christian ethics. He must be just and if possible popular. But he had better be feared than loved. He dare not let ethics keep him from doing whatever evil must be done to preserve himself and the state.
Machiavelli knew that states can only exist with treachery, unethical behavior, and evil. States exist in and for themselves, in and for whoever wields it. It is not an activity for the common good, or social welfare, or any universal benevolent purpose. It is for some to gain wealth and power by force against everyone else. In IDEA, that when made a code of conduct, results in social parasitism.
MF: you think you should be the one to decide what the law is, right?
Over my own person and homesteaded/traded property, yes.
do you think you have the right to kill someone who steals an apple on your land?
If 51% of people at the time think you have the right to do so, do you think you have the right? Or if this 51% decides slavery for the other 49% is okay, do you agree with that too?
If it is my last apple, the absence of which will lead to me starving to death, then yes. If one of us is to die from starvation, I think justice is served if I live, since it is my apple.
Do I have a right to set the law of my land, including clear declarations of “Don’t trespass or you will be shot at”? Yes.
Do I think it is *always* moral to shoot at apple thieves such that I have to answer yes or no to “Do I have a right to kill apple thieves?” No.
Philippe:
Why should law making on land change depending on how many people jointly own that land?
Suppose that on “my” land, which is quite large, and has 1000 inhabitants, there is a vote on the laws of the land. Would that make the SAME law moral and justified?
If not, why not? Are you telling me that YOU should be the law maker over this “democratic” territory?
——–
razer:
The problem with statism is that for some reason, they accept the same laws as ancapistan laws, as long as the land owners are greater than one person. More than one joint land owner voting to make the laws of that land? Moral and just. One person owner making that same law on their land? Immoral and unjust.
If you notice, their foundation is not pro-morality, or pro-justice, but rather, just ANTI-individualism. Period.
Philippe wrote:
“do you think you have the right to kill someone who steals an apple on your land?”
Philippe, it gets more complicated if the homeowner catches someone and wants to use force to prevent the initiation of theft, but after the fact, no, standard Rothbardian property rights do NOT allow you to kill an apple thief. At most you could take an apple back, then take an additional apple in order to violate the thief’s rights as much as he violated yours.
This is Rothbard’s (in)famous “two teeth for a tooth” dictum, explained here.
I’m not saying I endorse it, but you seem to think that standard an-cap says you can shoot anyone for the mildest infraction. No, that’s not correct.
Bob,
“standard Rothbardian property rights do NOT allow you to kill an apple thief”
So you are saying that you do not have the right to decide what the law is on your own land?
Philippe:
Murphy clearly said that is “standard Rothbardian theory”. He said he isn’t saying he endorses it.
“Murphy clearly said that is “standard Rothbardian theory”. He said he isn’t saying he endorses it.”
Okay, but that doesn’t answer my question, which was:
“are saying that you do not have the right to decide what the law is on your own land?”
*are you saying
Bob Murphy,
are you going to answer my question?:
“are you saying that you do not have the right to decide what the law is on your own land?”
?
I already answered that question.
The answer is no, that is not what MURPHY is saying.
That is what Murphy said ROTHBARD said. Murphy explained Rothbard’s view, and Murphy said “I am not saying I endorse it.”
“That is what Murphy said ROTHBARD said. Murphy explained Rothbard’s view, and Murphy said “I am not saying I endorse it.”
Bob Murphy,
do you believe you have the right to decide what the law is on your own land, or not?
Murphy is a pacifist, Philippe. He does not believe that he can do ANYTHING he wants to others in his own house.
Saying that someone has the right to make rules on their property doesn’t mean there aren’t limits when said property conflicts with someone else’s property. If a thief walks onto my property, he still has a property right in himself – he has the right to make rules on his own body just as I have the right to make rules on my land. If I tell him to get off my land, and he refuses, then he is clearly violating my rights. I can then use limited violence to get him off my land and restore any lost value. If I do any more than what I have to in order to get him off, then I have clearly violated his property rights and I would then also be an aggressor.
Which brings an important point that many pro-state thinkers seem to be ignoring (my comment on Callahan’s blog was never even approved, unfortunately). Even if the state did own all the land in this entire country (which is far beyond what most people think), it would still be violating rights of people living here constantly. Caging someone for months for petty crimes is ridiculous; you don’t suddenly gain that power over someone’s body just because they didn’t follow one of your house rules. And you certainly don’t have the right to attack people that are not on your property. The US government has murdered so many innocents that even if it did own all of the land in the US, it has since lost all right to it – just like any other criminal or criminal organization would if they mass-murdered people.
Reece,
you seem to have missed the point. Even you, as an ancap, believe that law determines property rights. You said as much with your comments, such as:
“Saying that someone has the right to make rules on their property doesn’t mean there aren’t limits when said property conflicts with someone else’s property”
I think that property rights are based on ethical principles.
I don’t believe that I am confused, although it is certainly possible. I was responding to your question on property rights:
“do you think you have the right to kill someone who steals an apple on your land?”
My answer would be “no” (as would Rothbard’s) unless if, as MF pointed out, it would lead to my death and there wasn’t an easier way.
In Ethics of Liberty: “We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of “proportionality.””
“do you think you have the right to kill someone who steals an apple on your land?”
I believe Murphy answers that in the video at around14:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw
Community pressure, prior laws in the community before one moves in; insurance premiums going up as protection is private if someone killed someone for just an apple.
I am again going to sing the praises of this book by Shepsle and Rabushka which was assigned back in 1973 along with “Power and Market”.
http://tinyurl.com/lpjxqon
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society tends to lead towards ethnic strife. The more “public goods” and the more ethnic and cultural divisions in a democracy tend to cause more trouble. I predicted this with the invasion of Iraq and part of the horrible results of that invasion can be traced to inflicting a big government democracy upon Iraq. As predicted, the largest ethnic group, the Shia, set about owning the government and all of its assets.
I think a good case could be made that the first such democratic slaughter-fest was the US Civil War. We know that the north really didn’t care much about the fate of black people but a case can be made that the northerners just hated the guts of southerners and got some of it out their system by killing the southerners’ dogs. Northerners still hate southerners.
I know that the “social democrats” will complain. But the rule apples where you have different groups in society who want to inflict their version of the truth on everyone else and where the result is intolerable for the losing minority. We’re seeing it now in the USA where socially conservative and socially liberal groups want to inflict their version of the wholesome life upon the other using SWAT teams, fines and prison. Politicians always appear who rile up their group with promises to inflict the state upon and spank the hated “other”. That cannot happen if violations of private property and person are prohibited and that prohibition is enforced.
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society tends to lead towards ethnic strife.”
That is not the conclusion of the authors at all.
I have read the book.
But did you understand it? Remember, you are the guy that was absolutely befuddled by the concept of self ownership and other simple concepts.
I’m not befuddled by the concept of self-ownership, I just think that it doesn’t make much sense.
Maybe you think that because I played the fool to expose the gaps in my interlocutor’s reasoning, this makes me a fool?
What gaps did you “expose” pray tell?
All you did was assert “That is not the conclusion of the authors at all.”
And where have you “exposed the gaps” in the concept of self-ownership? There too you’ve only disagreed with it.
“All you did was assert “That is not the conclusion of the authors at all.””
I was referring to another discussion, which razer was also referring to.
No, you were referring to the sentence you quoted:
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society tends to lead towards ethnic strife.”
no, I was referring to razer; “Remember, you are the guy that was absolutely befuddled by the concept of self ownership and other simple concepts.”
“History shows that democratic stability and cultural diversity are often incompatible in the postindependence politics of many plural societies. Furthermore, intense ethnic conflict frequently erupts shortly after native peoples obtain their independence. Those scholars who observed a multiethnic nationalist movement reported interethnic cooperation and forecast its continuance. On the other hand, those who studied plural societies in the postindependence period reported interethnic competition and conflict. Thus, the theories resulting from observations in these two different time periods have left us with an inconsistent account of politics in the plural society.”
and more
“Our review of ethnic politics in a variety of countries, not to mention the problems that presently confront the urban areas in America or French Canada (Quebec), or a growing ethnocentrism in Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, paints a bleak picture. A future defined by ethnic harmony appears to be most unlikely in the view that parts one and two of this book put forth.”
finally, and most pertinently:
“Conclusions are often banal and trite. Important theoretical questions are either begged or isolated as topics for future research. We propose neither to move cautiously towards the formation of a few tentative hypotheses, to allude to problems of measurement, nor to get lost in a maze of methodological discussion (which is very often beside the point). Instead we ask, is the resolution of intense but conflicting preferences in the plural society manageable in a democratic framework? We think not.”
These passages or from the “Conclusion” chapter of the book.
Roddis is right, Philippe is wrong.
Philippe either did not read the book and lied about it reading it, or he did read the book but his comprehension of it is wrong.
read their definition of a ‘plural society’.
Bingo, you lose.
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
Plural society = Ethic lines as almost exclusive grounds for politics.
That is what the authors conclude cannot be managed with democracy. They argue that trying to force democracy across such ethnic factions tends to lead to ethnic strife, which is the point Roddis referred to, which you said “Is not the conclusion the authors make.”
It is the conclusion they make.
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
This is clearly not the same thing as “Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” (as per Bob Roddis).
Sure it is. Roddis noted after that quote: “The more “public goods” and the more ethnic and cultural divisions in a democracy tend to cause more trouble.”
Roddis is talking about the very “plural” society criteria the authors note.
So, mf, do you think that
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
is the same as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
?
And more:
“I predicted this with the invasion of Iraq and part of the horrible results of that invasion can be traced to inflicting a big government democracy upon Iraq.”
Iraq prior to the invasion (and still relevant today) was largely characterized by ethic plurality along the “political” lines defined by the authors. The Shias and Sunnis were politically sectarian and were and are constantly hostile towards each other under the “Iraq” nation state banner. Two separate states would have drastically reduced the conflict.
Philippe:
“So, mf, do you think that
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
is the same as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.””
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society as understood by Roddis as the rest of his post makes clear, yes, they are the same.
you might be right, but you haven’t answered my question.
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society as understood by Roddis as the rest of his post makes clear, yes, they are the same”
No,
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
is not the same as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
Philippe:
“You might be right, but you haven’t answered my question.”
I did answer it. I said that very sentence Roddis used: ““Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”” is, as Roddis understood it, the same as the other quote you posted.
If you understood that sentence differently, then that is not an issue of the argument being made here. It is something for you to deal with.
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” is, as Roddis understood it, the same as the other quote you posted.”
So you are attempting to extricate yourself by blah blah blahing. As usual.
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
is not the same as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
This is a fact. but you will not acknowledge this fact because it pains you to do so.
Philippe:
“So you are attempting to extricate yourself by blah blah blahing.”
No, I am just showing you that you misread Roddis.
You seem to be unable to admit you did misread him, and are now trying to assert that there is one and only one “proper” (i.e. what you personally believe that sentence means) meaning of that sentence.
Those two sentences do in fact refer to the same thing, which was Roddis’ point.
I notice that when you have been shown to have made a mistake, you argue over semantics and want to save your original claim by changing the definition away from what it actually us, to a way that would make you turn out right after all. As usual.
You will not admit you misread him, because “it pains you to do so.”
“you misread Roddis”
why don’t you tell me how:
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
Is the same thing as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
Please, tell me.
Philippe:
“why don’t you tell me how”
I did. Starting here:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/09/obama-on-pulling-troops-out-of-iraq.html#comment-895292
I explained how, and instead of you continuing with that, you turned it all around and asked me if two sentences mean the same thing.
Those two sentences mean the same thing as Roddis explained. When Roddis said “multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” he meant what the authors meant by “the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines”.
You want to pretend you were right to claim the authors did not make the first claim by insisting that there is only one “approved” meaning of that first sentence.
I didn’t misread Roddis.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect people to interpret Roddis’s comment in the light of Roddis’s peculiar intepretations (by peculiar I mean particular to him).
If Bob means that “multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” is the same as “Ethnic lines as almost exclusive grounds for politics.” as MF claims he is very likely to be mis-understood, because that is not what the words mean to most other people. Multi ethnic he could get away with, but multicultural has a very well used meaning that is quite distinct from that of plural used above.
It seems likely that he was more likely to be extrapolating. In an exclusively ethnic case, there are these demonstrable problems, therefore in less extreme cases there will be similar but less extreme problems. Otherwise, even if he did mean what MF claims he meant, it is a point with no relevance to what most people understand by multi cultural society.
I am sure multiculturism has its reasonable objections, but from the quoted bits of the book from MF it seems that this particular book is not making a case about them, but rather a different category of plural countries.
Harold:
As I explained to Philippe, you have to read the whole of Roddis’ post to know what he means by that sentence.
I am sure you have heard of the faux pas of “quoting people out of context”, right? Well, when you write that sentence on its own, stripped from the context, then any understanding of that sentence according to ” what most people would think it means” is not actually a good argument of showing how that person is choosing the wrong words.
Some people have the unfortunate habit of quoting one sentence fom what people write, and form an entire response based on an understanding of that sentence in isolation.
Yes, you’re right, the authors are talking about a fairly restricted criteria of what constitutes “plural.”. But if you notice, Roddis never said social democracy leads to “significant” or “major” ethnic strife. He just said strife. That includes everything from minor to major, and he said the more culturally diverse a territory becomes, which I read as including diversity in political views, but not because I personally think cultural diversity necessarily leads to or implies political view diversity, but because that is what I think Roddis is saying, the more strife results from imposing democracy on all cultures lumped under one democratic control center.
I think the list Roddis gave of examples of plural society factions is accurate, if we include cultural diversity in with ethnic diversity, since after all ethnic diversity in terms of people’s actions is not unlike cultural diversity.
I will go further and submit that the reason imposing democracy on a plural society (as the authors define it) leads to plural strife, which it seems none of us disagree with, is the same exact reason why imposing democracy on INDIVIDUALS leads to individual to individual strife.
I think individuals are sufficiently diverse from each other that imposing a democracy on individuals leads to strife.
Many people identify differences among people according to group differences, like ethnicity, culture, gender, race, and so on. But I think differences go right down to the individual level.
For example, I am sufficiently different from you and your family that should anyone impose democracy on us, you and I would have conflict imposed on us, because whatever is imposed, will not be tailored to at least one of us, and probably both of us.
Only libertarians, specifically anarcho-capitalists, respect the individual enough to even recognize this in everyday debating and discussion. Everyone else thinks of differences between people as residing in the Platonic ideal world of holistic abstract groups. It is not just ethnicity, gender, race that this is done. It is also done with economic classes, and wealth/income levels. Imposing democratic rules and laws that target specific economic classes, invariably leads to class conflict.
I think disrespecting individual differences, ignoring them, invariably leads to victimizing individuals from one’s group oriented “help.” We see it so often. Good intentions having bad outcomes because the intention was to benefit one group, which must come at the expense of those not in that group.
Tailoring political solutions that benefit individuals has no necessary exploitation of others, because everyone is an individual! Indivodually tailored political solutions requires anarcho-capitalism. This will eliminate politically causes conflict, and thus reduce the totality of all conflict.
I won’t go too far down the rabbit hole, suffice to say the argument was not about whether Roddis’ opinion was right, but whether what he said was the conclusion of the book. It strikes me that Roddis went beyond what the quotes given here indicate the book said.
The 1972 edition of the book can be downloaded for free (about 12 MB). Here are some of the definitions and conclusions.
Page 20
To summarize, A SOCIETY IS PLURAL IF IT IS CULTURALLY DIVERSE AND IF ITS CULTURAL SECTIONS ARE ORGANIZED INTO COHESIVE POLITICAL SECTIONS. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation.
(Rx) Prescriptions for the Plural Society:
Some Applications of the Theory
Page 216 4. Restrictions on the scope of government. Public goods in the plural society often become the preserve of the advantaged political community and tend to be viewed as public bads by those communities excluded from power. Since the provision of public goods by the state is its primary raison d’etre, regime legitimacy often suffers when public funds are used to provide communal goods. If our theory is sound, an agreement to minimize the scope of public goods — and a reliance on the free market — should tone down the invidious quality of ethnic politics in the plural society.
Page 217 A Final Question
Conclusions are often banal and trite. Important theoretical questions are either begged or isolated as topics for future research. We propose neither to move cautiously towards the formation of a few tentative hypotheses, to allude to problems of measurement, nor to get lost in a maze of methodological discussion (which is very often beside the point). Instead we ask, is the resolution of intense but conflicting preferences in the plural society manageable in a democratic framework?
We think not.
http://web.stanford.edu/~rabushka/politics%20in%20plural%20societies.pdf
define ‘plural society’, Bob.
Ommmmm……..
Remember guys….
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/i-call-krugmans-bluff-on-european-austerity.html#comment-855172
so… you have no real response to my totally non-troll question?
Roddis:
Just use the Philippe method:
Make a false claim, then insist that the definitions used were wrong, so that your initially false claim can be turned into a correct claim by using the “approved” Philippe definitions.
Best part is we never know what definitions are until he makes a false claim. Then suddenly definitions become important.
mf,
given that you have an apparent new-found dedication to clarity, why don’t you explain how:
“Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society”
Is the same thing as:
“the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines.”
…which was the whole point of this stupid thread in the first place.
Philippe:
I already did.
I explained how they are the same as Roddis meant them.
That is enough.
I don’t need to explain anything else.
To clarify further, Roddis stated that the more ethically and culturally diverse a society becomes, the more conflict arises under democracy.
This conflict is political conflict. That political conflict is political diversity, which is what the authors mean by “plural society.”
“I explained how they are the same as Roddis meant them”
No, you just lied.
I didn’t lie. You’re just wrong.
Philippe:
The source of your confusion and misreading is you insisting that “Social democracy in a multi-ethnic and/or multi–cultural society” somehow cannot mean a plural society as the authors define it.
You’re thinking of the “pluralistic society”, of various ethnic groups, where within a given ethnic group there is not significant political agreement, such as the example given of Italian-Americans.
Roddis’ point is the author’s point, that democracy leads to ethnic strife in plural societies where various ethnic groups DO significantly agree politically (and differently compared to other ethnic groups).
You’re just thinking of the scenario of people of many different ethnicities all sitting around the campfire singing “slightly left of center” kumbaya songs of brotherhood and sharing.
Roddis is not talking about that. You are misreading him, and you can’t admit it.
The definitions are clearly stated in the book. I used the definitions correctly and stated the conclusions correctly. I provided a link for the entire book. What else can I say or do?
Page 19
The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines. To put the emphasis differently, in the plural society — but not in the pluralistic society — the overwhelming preponderance of political conflicts is perceived in ethnic terms. Permanent ethnic communities acting cohesively on nearly all political issues determine a plural society and distinguish it from a culturally {p. 20} heterogeneous, nonplural society. In pluralistic countries, where coalitions often vary from issue to issue, the cultural categories tend neither to be carefully demarcated nor always politically salient. Italian-Americans, for example, though they may vote cohesively on some issues, often divide on a great many others. And, in the United States, Italian and Irish highway contractors view themselves as businessmen, not ethnic representatives, in competition.
To summarize, a society is plural if it is culturally diverse and if its cultural sections are organized into cohesive political sections. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation. Politically organized cultural sections, communally based political parties, the partitioning of major social groups (e.g., labor unions) into culturally homogeneous subgroups, and political appeals emphasizing primordial sentiments serve as unambiguous indicators of a plural society.
Pursuant to this definition, Northerners vs southerners during the civil war are covered because of their opposing cultures. Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian and/or are Orthodox vs Western Ukrainians who speak Ukrainian and are Catholic are covered. Shia vs Sunni are covered. Today, northern liberal atheists vs. southern evangelicals are covered.
I’m truly sick to death of our opponents obfuscating and distorting every single word we say because they know they have no other method for refuting us.
“What else can I say or do?”
Be a statist of course. Then miraculously all of your definitions will be pre-approved.
“The hallmark of the plural society, and the feature that distinguishes it from its pluralistic counterpart, is the practice of politics almost exclusively along ethnic lines“
“Northerners vs southerners”
“Eastern Ukrainians vs Western Ukrainians”
“Shia vs Sunni”
“northern liberal atheists vs. southern evangelicals”
For some strange reason you think that you can corral these examples into an argument against “multi-cultural social democracy”, which you hate to begin with.
I genuinely don’t know how a brain could so malfunction that it would begin so see such patterns in the ether.
Violating dinner conversation etiquette, you are nothing but liar.
To summarize, a society is plural if it is culturally diverse and if its cultural sections are organized into cohesive political sections. The identification of a plural society, then, becomes a matter of observation.
Philippe will do anything to distort the plain language of a point he has lost.
Philippe, you’re trolling.
Clearly Roddis whole post is using that very definition of “plural.”
You just can’t admit you were wrong. Now you are relegating to calling people names.
Do you accept that “multicultural” does not mean the same as “plural”? If so, then saying multi ethnic and/or multicultural seems a bit of a stretch.
Multi ethnic may have no precise meaning, multicultural does and it is not the same as plural.
“I genuinely don’t know how a brain could so malfunction that it would begin so see such patterns in the ether.”
His brain isn’t malfunctioning, your understanding is flawed and you cannot admit it.
All those examples in quotes are examples of “plural” distinctions.
He did not “corral” them into “multi-cultural social democracy.” He was giving a list so as to help you understand what he meant, and what the authors wrote.
You’re just wrong.
The politician will find that obscuring the truth and shaping reality and public beliefs is easier (lower cost to him) when the situation involved is more complex, when the public and media know less about it, when it cannot be easily observed by the public, and when he has better control over the flow of information
An overseas war meets these conditions. Global warming fills the bill, until there is a series of cold winters. Complex financial matters fill the bill. A complex health insurance scheme fills the bill until some people experience its high costs. The medical benefits of some remedy will be hard for the public to see and assess. The leaders of a government will choose areas of control partly on the basis of their capacity to paint the picture that enhances them and their powers, and that will be in areas of greatest complexity and opaqueness to the public in which these leaders will have a greater opportunity to shape the reality as they see fit.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/michael-s-rozeff/electing-psychopaths-just-makes-them-worse/
If politicians did not lie to us then how could we possibly know who to vote for?
Based on their policies. Right now even if a politician reads a nice script before the election, following it after the election is altogether another matter.
How would you know their policies if they didn’t lie?
I do not like politicians. Even local level politicians get under my skin. They are all the same. Seen one, seen them all.
I will concede that all of the many case studies in the book concern what we would see as “traditional” ethnic differences. Imposing social democracy upon such societies is dangerous.That’s the point that should be addressed because it destroys the viability of social democracy all by itself. I was expanding that analysis to include mere (but severe) “cultural differences” but employing the broad definition of a “plural society” from the book. The north and south may come from the same genetic pool but one group’s government-imposed economic “good” was the others’ economic “bad”.
This is like all of the other attacks by the hostiles where instead of discussing the actual point made, hairs are relentless split, whether like on this post or just fussing about whether runaway slaves were returned to the Confederacy as opposed to Washington DC (which is actually worse).
I saw all of the posts for this clip and was expecting some good ole’ “liar liar, pants on fire!” quips.
I feel the need to fill the void:
Obama is a big liar liar pants on fire! (drops the mic)
Cheers
Of course it’s Obama’s decision. Obama could have extinguished the Islamic State in January of this year. He didn’t. This is almost certainly because he wanted it to expand. Whatever Obama’s doing in Iraq, it’s certainly 100% his decision. Perhaps Obama wants to fight the Iraq war again, only this time, winning it, thus showing the Republicans he’s beaten them at their own game against a much more formidable enemy. I don’t see this as likely, because, as the last few weeks has shown, Obama is perfectly willing to make symbolic strikes at the Islamic State while only making symbolic gains. He has no intention of destroying it with any speed. I think the Islamic State’s rule of Raqqa will last another nine months, at least.
This reminds me of this video showing Obama’s lie during the 2012 campaign, repeated in almost every campaign speech, that he would “pay down our debt” (towards the end of the video it shows several clips of “pay down our debt”), which for some reason his opposition failed to bother going after the way they should:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJbYNDRn_Y
A longer version of that and more background info:
http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/obama-lied-about-paying-down-the-debt