I got my 6yo 1 and 2 for Christmas but we just got around to watching 1. I guess it was the Donner cut, so after 20 minutes he wanted to stop it but I told him to hang in there. We have a deal where I tell him “remember how I promise to never tell you I told you so? Well I won’t.”
I can’t wait until he wants to watch 2! Isn’t it amazing that the new one isn’t even close to these?
In AnCapistan, wouldn’t the private insurance companies and/or protection services serve as de-facto governments in many ways? In other words, couldn’t Zod just bully THEM around and get them to “surrender” which would deliver the population into his hands just as effectively as if the President did it? And it’s not like he would have to bully each one – once he displayed his power and made it clear that hold-outs would eventually be destroyed, lots of people would presumably surrender voluntarily.
That won’t work with squirrels because squirrels don’t have global communication like that. You can’t “make an example” of a group of squirrels, but you certainly can of humans. And that’s sort of why the Germans were able to conquer the French so easily, isn’t it? It’s not that there was a Nazi soldier stationed at every farm to ensure obedience. It’s that the farmers saw what they did to the French army and said “Wow, if they killed them so easily, they could do the same to me! I better fall in line!”
Thus, the average person defends the existence of the State not for principled reasons but instead as the lesser of two evils.”
It’s so much easier to hold to an ideology when you can just make up crap about everyone who doesn’t hold it, isn’t it?
I’m not making it up, Gene. That’s what I thought when I believed in the State.
It takes intellectuals like you to actually think taking money at gunpoint from people is a socially good thing, full stop.
Once again, Gene shows us that he is holier than thou, and holds no normative positions that aren’t shared by “everyone” in the world. (clap, clap, clap). Congratulations, Gene! After all, the state that *is* is a proof against any sort of idea that focuses upon the *ought*, and one mustn’t accept that through time and the changing state of humanity, that a certain norm cannot be realized. In this case, “ideology” becomes a bad, because the state of humanity can only be expressed in what *has* happened in the past (indeed, this is the formulation of his opinion), rather than what *can* be possible in the future. He’s the ultimate soothsayer of philosophy and reality!
Mike M, I disagree. As much as I disagree with Gene, and as much as he pisses me off at times, he is indeed an “intellectual”. He just happens to be one that makes many mistakes, but then, that is not unexpected.
I’m not very familiar with your work (what with you not telling us your last name), but I don’t know that you’re the authority to tell us the difference between a genuine intellectual and a “pseudo” intellectual.
Ummm Joe, …it was a bit of sardonic humor. Humor is something that is sorely missing in public discourse today. This is why I like Murphy, he occasionally injects humor, takes the subject seriously but not himself.
BTW, even if I was serious about the pseudo thing, it would of been opinion on the comment section of a Blog and “Authority” in that context is irrelevant. To lift a classic line from the movie Stripes, “lighten up Francis”
Not a single person has ever pointed a gun at me to collect taxes. Why do anarchists feel the need to make this stuff up? (Oh, never mind, how else would you believe in anarchism?)
That question always leads to red herring responses, like “same thing would happen in ancapistan if you don’t make good on your contracts!”, showing that the point being made about what happens if you don’t pay them, was ignored. Maybe too psychologically harsh to think about? Most statists are just world believers. They seem to go out of their way to convince themselves that tax evaders are thieves and criminals absolutely, instead of realizing they’re only thieves and criminals according to the state’s laws, which of course begs the question.
That question always leads to red herring responses, like “same thing would happen in ancapistan if you don’t make good on your contracts!”, showing that the point being made about what happens if you don’t pay them, was ignored. Maybe too psychologically harsh to think about? Most statists are just world believers. They seem to go out of their way to convince themselves that tax evaders are thieves and criminals absolutely, instead of realizing they’re only thieves and criminals according to the state’s laws, which of course begs the question.
The rapist didn’t actually pull their gun or knife on the victim, they just threatened to do so, which of course coerced the victim into not fighting back.
According to Callahan’s logic, that means it the sex was consensual and anyone who claims the rapist did it at knifepoint or gunpoint is a vicious liar who is only trying to make the rapist look bad and involuntary.
Gene, don’t you think that most Americans believe that we’re endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that we have to sacrifice some of those rights to the government so that they can protect our rights from criminals?
Having read Gene’s latest post, I withdraw my objection to his comment:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-government-necessary-evil.html
Gene notes that the average person believes that government is the lesser of two evils in the sense that it’s an unpleasant thing that we’d prefer not to have if we could avoid it, but they don’t believe that it’s the lesser of two evils in the sense that it’s an necessary immoral institution.
Why would we prefer not to have it if we could avoid it if it’s NOT necessarily an immoral institution?
If the state were a net positive, then everyone would WANT to have one, whether we truly “needed” it or not.
The state is NOT like a cold beer on a hot summers day. It is like a root canal. You have it because you are afraid that not having it would create an even worse scenario. But you still hate it, and optimally, wouldn’t have to have it at all.
“Why would we prefer not to have it if we could avoid it if it’s NOT necessarily an immoral institution?” (I mean to write “necessary but immoral” by the way). There are lots of things that people don’t consider immoral but would prefer not to have. Presumably you believe that private security at Disneyworld isn’t immoral, but that it would be nicer if Disney didn’t have to use them. And lots of parents think it’s morally justified to shout at their kids from time to time, even though they’d prefer not to if they could raise their kids well without it.
“If the state were a net positive, then everyone would WANT to have one, whether we truly “needed” it or not.” Not necessarily. Some people may be mistaken about what’s good for them. And also, people may think something is good for society as a whole even if it’s a net negative for certain individuals.
“It is like a root canal. You have it because you are afraid that not having it would create an even worse scenario. But you still hate it, and optimally, wouldn’t have to have it at all.” But root canals aren’t immoral, are they?
Keshav, out of curiosity, do you *agree* with Gene’s read of the pulse of the average man? Do you think most people view the State as akin to going to the gym, or more like the regrettable necessity of war?
Yes, I do agree with what he said in the post (which is why I withdrew my objection), which is that people don’t view government as a fundamentally immoral institution that we have to be put up with. They view it as a fully morally justified institution which we’d just prefer not to have, because it has consequences we’d prefer to not have like having to pay taxes and obey laws we may not always agree with. But they don’t think that’s a violation of people’s rights, they just think that we as a society have chosen to loansome of our rights to the government.
Gene’s written quite a few posts on ideology. Here’s a post where he lays out a characterization of ideology and the problems he has with it:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2010/05/aristotle-and-ideology.html
And here’s a post where he gives an example:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-create-ideology.html
Hey Keshav, I should probably say that even though we disagree a lot, you are a pretty helpful guy to have around. You are always giving links to clarify stuff. If you were a tank engine, you would be really useful.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Okay, what happened there? I thought Gene Callahan is an Austrian economist . What is the disagreement? Is he saying the state is necessary or ac doesn’t work? I lost the thread of the debate, though I really feel I know a lot about Superman.
Well, I think Rothbard did believe that fractional reserve banking was fraudulent, which I assume would violate the non-aggression principle. Didn’t he believe that the use of force is justified in response to violations of the non-aggression principle? Now being an anarchist he presumably didn’t want the State doing anything about it, but would he support private law systems stopping it?
Niccolo Machiavelli compared the Ottoman Empire to France:
“The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.
The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity.”
I am assume here that to a libertarian a strong government is bad; a weak government is tolerable; a minimal government is better; and no government is the best?
Bob, you’re a pacifist (as am I), but how do you think non-pacifist libertarians feel about Disneyworld private security? I think their feelings towards it are roughly analogous to the average person’s view of government: something that’s justified in existing, but which you’d remove if it wasn’t necessary.
Side note to the point you’re making, but you and Dr. Murphy define pacifism in different ways. It’s kind of like how Bill Maher and Glenn Beck call themselves libertarians but they clearly are using that word in a way I never would.
Yes, I don’t think pacifism in most people’s use of that term requires anarchism. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are generally considered pacifists, but they both believed that the government should exist.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you believed it is justified for the State to use violence in certain situations. I don’t know a lot about Gandhi’s or MLK’s views on government, but if they also held that view then I would also say they are using that term differently than Murphy. Murphy is more along the lines of Jesus’ brand of pacifism.
Not that this is a big deal. I just have a knee jerk reaction to point out when people are using the same descriptive word in two different ways without clarifying those differences.
Gandhi was fine with the existence of the Republic of India, and with it using force to enforce laws. Martin Luther King supported the existence of the US government; he supported federal civil rights legislation and taxation of the rich, all of which would involve the use of force. And most people don’t think Jesus was an anarchist either. He may not have wanted ordinary people to resort to violence, so he would be a pacifist the way I and most people use the term, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t want any governments to exist.
Maybe I’m wrong, but can you point me to an instance where Jesus supported violence of any kind?
As far as Ghandi and MLK, if they supported the use of violence then they are using pacifism in a different sense than Dr. Murphy. You can say that the way he uses it is the unorthodox version, but that doesn’t change the fact that you guys don’t mean the same thing when you call yourselves pacifists.
Also, can you show me where Jesus thought people working within the State were not ordinary people, and thus his peaceful principles no longer applied.
I got my 6yo 1 and 2 for Christmas but we just got around to watching 1. I guess it was the Donner cut, so after 20 minutes he wanted to stop it but I told him to hang in there. We have a deal where I tell him “remember how I promise to never tell you I told you so? Well I won’t.”
I can’t wait until he wants to watch 2! Isn’t it amazing that the new one isn’t even close to these?
Playing Devil’s Advocate here –
In AnCapistan, wouldn’t the private insurance companies and/or protection services serve as de-facto governments in many ways? In other words, couldn’t Zod just bully THEM around and get them to “surrender” which would deliver the population into his hands just as effectively as if the President did it? And it’s not like he would have to bully each one – once he displayed his power and made it clear that hold-outs would eventually be destroyed, lots of people would presumably surrender voluntarily.
That won’t work with squirrels because squirrels don’t have global communication like that. You can’t “make an example” of a group of squirrels, but you certainly can of humans. And that’s sort of why the Germans were able to conquer the French so easily, isn’t it? It’s not that there was a Nazi soldier stationed at every farm to ensure obedience. It’s that the farmers saw what they did to the French army and said “Wow, if they killed them so easily, they could do the same to me! I better fall in line!”
“Thus, the average person defends the existence of the State not for principled reasons but instead as the lesser of two evils.”
It’s so much easier to hold to an ideology when you can just make up crap about everyone who doesn’t hold it, isn’t it?
Thus, the average person defends the existence of the State not for principled reasons but instead as the lesser of two evils.”
It’s so much easier to hold to an ideology when you can just make up crap about everyone who doesn’t hold it, isn’t it?
I’m not making it up, Gene. That’s what I thought when I believed in the State.
It takes intellectuals like you to actually think taking money at gunpoint from people is a socially good thing, full stop.
Once again, Gene shows us that he is holier than thou, and holds no normative positions that aren’t shared by “everyone” in the world. (clap, clap, clap). Congratulations, Gene! After all, the state that *is* is a proof against any sort of idea that focuses upon the *ought*, and one mustn’t accept that through time and the changing state of humanity, that a certain norm cannot be realized. In this case, “ideology” becomes a bad, because the state of humanity can only be expressed in what *has* happened in the past (indeed, this is the formulation of his opinion), rather than what *can* be possible in the future. He’s the ultimate soothsayer of philosophy and reality!
pseudo intellectual
There, fixed it for you
Mike M, I disagree. As much as I disagree with Gene, and as much as he pisses me off at times, he is indeed an “intellectual”. He just happens to be one that makes many mistakes, but then, that is not unexpected.
I’m not very familiar with your work (what with you not telling us your last name), but I don’t know that you’re the authority to tell us the difference between a genuine intellectual and a “pseudo” intellectual.
*at least in terms of judging.
Ummm Joe, …it was a bit of sardonic humor. Humor is something that is sorely missing in public discourse today. This is why I like Murphy, he occasionally injects humor, takes the subject seriously but not himself.
BTW, even if I was serious about the pseudo thing, it would of been opinion on the comment section of a Blog and “Authority” in that context is irrelevant. To lift a classic line from the movie Stripes, “lighten up Francis”
http://youtu.be/C6cxNR9ML8k
Love that movie
Pseudo is correct:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/god-as-author.html#comment-28993
Hey Richie, please post a link to your credentials to demonstrate your “authority” to make that assertion. I misplaced mine. 🙂
“taking money at gunpoint”
Not a single person has ever pointed a gun at me to collect taxes. Why do anarchists feel the need to make this stuff up? (Oh, never mind, how else would you believe in anarchism?)
Try not paying them.
That question always leads to red herring responses, like “same thing would happen in ancapistan if you don’t make good on your contracts!”, showing that the point being made about what happens if you don’t pay them, was ignored. Maybe too psychologically harsh to think about? Most statists are just world believers. They seem to go out of their way to convince themselves that tax evaders are thieves and criminals absolutely, instead of realizing they’re only thieves and criminals according to the state’s laws, which of course begs the question.
That question always leads to red herring responses, like “same thing would happen in ancapistan if you don’t make good on your contracts!”, showing that the point being made about what happens if you don’t pay them, was ignored. Maybe too psychologically harsh to think about? Most statists are just world believers. They seem to go out of their way to convince themselves that tax evaders are thieves and criminals absolutely, instead of realizing they’re only thieves and criminals according to the state’s laws, which of course begs the question.
Really though Gene the gun is already pointed at you. They will not pull the trigger until you refuse to pay.
Reading this exchange has made me realize I’d rather be an anarchist than come across like Gene Callahan.
Bless your heart, Transformer
The rapist didn’t actually pull their gun or knife on the victim, they just threatened to do so, which of course coerced the victim into not fighting back.
According to Callahan’s logic, that means it the sex was consensual and anyone who claims the rapist did it at knifepoint or gunpoint is a vicious liar who is only trying to make the rapist look bad and involuntary.
Hey Gene, I get the feeling that every time you walk past a black guy, you throw your wallet at him and run away.
“That’s what I thought…”
You are not “the average person.”
You are not “the average person.”
Wait, am I above average or below average?
Gene, don’t you think that most Americans believe that we’re endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that we have to sacrifice some of those rights to the government so that they can protect our rights from criminals?
Having read Gene’s latest post, I withdraw my objection to his comment:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-government-necessary-evil.html
Gene notes that the average person believes that government is the lesser of two evils in the sense that it’s an unpleasant thing that we’d prefer not to have if we could avoid it, but they don’t believe that it’s the lesser of two evils in the sense that it’s an necessary immoral institution.
Why would we prefer not to have it if we could avoid it if it’s NOT necessarily an immoral institution?
If the state were a net positive, then everyone would WANT to have one, whether we truly “needed” it or not.
The state is NOT like a cold beer on a hot summers day. It is like a root canal. You have it because you are afraid that not having it would create an even worse scenario. But you still hate it, and optimally, wouldn’t have to have it at all.
“Why would we prefer not to have it if we could avoid it if it’s NOT necessarily an immoral institution?” (I mean to write “necessary but immoral” by the way). There are lots of things that people don’t consider immoral but would prefer not to have. Presumably you believe that private security at Disneyworld isn’t immoral, but that it would be nicer if Disney didn’t have to use them. And lots of parents think it’s morally justified to shout at their kids from time to time, even though they’d prefer not to if they could raise their kids well without it.
“If the state were a net positive, then everyone would WANT to have one, whether we truly “needed” it or not.” Not necessarily. Some people may be mistaken about what’s good for them. And also, people may think something is good for society as a whole even if it’s a net negative for certain individuals.
“It is like a root canal. You have it because you are afraid that not having it would create an even worse scenario. But you still hate it, and optimally, wouldn’t have to have it at all.” But root canals aren’t immoral, are they?
Keshav, out of curiosity, do you *agree* with Gene’s read of the pulse of the average man? Do you think most people view the State as akin to going to the gym, or more like the regrettable necessity of war?
Yes, I do agree with what he said in the post (which is why I withdrew my objection), which is that people don’t view government as a fundamentally immoral institution that we have to be put up with. They view it as a fully morally justified institution which we’d just prefer not to have, because it has consequences we’d prefer to not have like having to pay taxes and obey laws we may not always agree with. But they don’t think that’s a violation of people’s rights, they just think that we as a society have chosen to loansome of our rights to the government.
I’m curious as to what is your definition of ‘ideology’. It seems
that:
* You think it is a bad thing.
* You think other people have it, and you don’t.
Could you elaborate on that?
Gene’s written quite a few posts on ideology. Here’s a post where he lays out a characterization of ideology and the problems he has with it:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2010/05/aristotle-and-ideology.html
And here’s a post where he gives an example:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-create-ideology.html
Hey Keshav, I should probably say that even though we disagree a lot, you are a pretty helpful guy to have around. You are always giving links to clarify stuff. If you were a tank engine, you would be really useful.
Thomas the Tank Engine was one of my favorite shows, so that’s high praise.
I realized there was a problem when I asked my wife, what is up with all this “useful” stuff?
She said, “what are you talking about?”
“This stuff that is on all the time in the background making a huge deal about being useful?”
“I never heard that before.”
Oh, to be able to tune out of the background. It must be wonderful.
Thanks for the reference Keshav.
Gene (if I may),
How do you get the word “everyone” out of Bob’s use of the word “average?”
Forget about Zod and all the others.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Okay, what happened there? I thought Gene Callahan is an Austrian economist . What is the disagreement? Is he saying the state is necessary or ac doesn’t work? I lost the thread of the debate, though I really feel I know a lot about Superman.
Whoa! That “box” TV had four extra monitor bays!
And look how small and curvy the screen is.
Murray Rothbard’s version of anarcho capitalism requires govt to police fractional reserve banking.
Bucknell Johnson,
I am not sure if you are being funny or Murray really sad something to this effect?
Never the less, it is impossible for government to police the hand that feeds them…
Well, I think Rothbard did believe that fractional reserve banking was fraudulent, which I assume would violate the non-aggression principle. Didn’t he believe that the use of force is justified in response to violations of the non-aggression principle? Now being an anarchist he presumably didn’t want the State doing anything about it, but would he support private law systems stopping it?
Niccolo Machiavelli compared the Ottoman Empire to France:
“The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.
The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity.”
I am assume here that to a libertarian a strong government is bad; a weak government is tolerable; a minimal government is better; and no government is the best?
Bob, you’re a pacifist (as am I), but how do you think non-pacifist libertarians feel about Disneyworld private security? I think their feelings towards it are roughly analogous to the average person’s view of government: something that’s justified in existing, but which you’d remove if it wasn’t necessary.
Side note to the point you’re making, but you and Dr. Murphy define pacifism in different ways. It’s kind of like how Bill Maher and Glenn Beck call themselves libertarians but they clearly are using that word in a way I never would.
Yes, I don’t think pacifism in most people’s use of that term requires anarchism. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are generally considered pacifists, but they both believed that the government should exist.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you believed it is justified for the State to use violence in certain situations. I don’t know a lot about Gandhi’s or MLK’s views on government, but if they also held that view then I would also say they are using that term differently than Murphy. Murphy is more along the lines of Jesus’ brand of pacifism.
Not that this is a big deal. I just have a knee jerk reaction to point out when people are using the same descriptive word in two different ways without clarifying those differences.
Gandhi was fine with the existence of the Republic of India, and with it using force to enforce laws. Martin Luther King supported the existence of the US government; he supported federal civil rights legislation and taxation of the rich, all of which would involve the use of force. And most people don’t think Jesus was an anarchist either. He may not have wanted ordinary people to resort to violence, so he would be a pacifist the way I and most people use the term, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t want any governments to exist.
Maybe I’m wrong, but can you point me to an instance where Jesus supported violence of any kind?
As far as Ghandi and MLK, if they supported the use of violence then they are using pacifism in a different sense than Dr. Murphy. You can say that the way he uses it is the unorthodox version, but that doesn’t change the fact that you guys don’t mean the same thing when you call yourselves pacifists.
Also, can you show me where Jesus thought people working within the State were not ordinary people, and thus his peaceful principles no longer applied.