To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources…
How does that follow in any way?
That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
First off, I love this conversation. I’m delayed because of a combo of sleep deprivation and working on a major design project in CAD. My creative CAD mindset is not very compatible with such a philosophical subject.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless. If their coercion is my only ethical or moral regulation, it is a poor motivator.
I think the vast majority of people historically and in the present are honest and want to be fair with each other. The majority of history is anonymous because good, regular honest people do not write or record their mundane lives. The recorded accounts that exist are from or about the notable monsters.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
That is offensive to me because of my situation and how the people that caused my physical disability had no repercussions. I was priced out of any restitution. I am quite literally the collateral damage with my life wrecked by this in so many ways I am not going to mention.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself. I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior. I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
You’re asking a question that relates to IR theory of anarchy, and the short answer is that governments, on the national scale, carry out the same behavior that individuals do in the absence of central conflict resolution authority - and, in the same way, develop towards increasing centralization amongst themselves to fulfill the purpose of deterrence against outside forces (in the broadest sense, universalist orgs like the UN; in a narrower and more recognizable sense, supranational entities like NATO and the EU which have real, though not infinite, power to compel their members states).
Your question of “Why shouldn’t it?” is irrelevant; the correct question would be “Why doesn’t it?”, since what’s being discussed is the world as it is, not the world as we wish it to be.
And the answer to the latter question would be a negation of the base assertion that it doesn’t: it absolutely does, and has, through all of history, layered over a thousand different moral codes and cultural norms; that practical, opportunistic extension of violence by states and protostates has always reasserted itself in the absence of restraining factors. Just like it does in societies of individuals.
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
People are not just beliefs and cultures. People are animals as well, with animal desires and animal feelings, and, for that matter, limited information in any given situation. And again, you go back to ‘motivation’ when I’ve clearly and explicitly stated, in contradiction to that very claim, that it’s not a question of motivation, but restraint.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless.
Holy fucking shit, man, if you think that modern states do nothing against theft, I really don’t know what the fuck to tell you. “The police don’t catch shoplifters!” is blatantly untrue, in any case - in fact, it’s one of the more pointless and resource-wasteful things they do in the modern day as part of performative security.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
This is some libertarian “The market will regulate itself!” thinking that doesn’t actually work out the way it’s claimed to. Fuck’s sake.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself.
You don’t see negative consequences as a deterrent.
That’s an, uh, interesting life philosophy you have there. I can’t help but imagine that you’ve had some exceptional luck to last this long with that in mind.
I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior.
…
What the ever-loving fuck do you think theft and unlawful violence is being defined as here
I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
Yes, this is why systems of retribution and coercion focus on performing retribution and violence on actors, instead of just punching blindly at the air?
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
… isn’t that contrary to your claim that you regulate the behavior of others with your own, rational self-interest market choices, not contrary to my claim of having subcontracted out regulation of market behavior to a centralized authority?
Christ.
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
This is probably the first time I’ve heard basic social contract theory in the vein of Hobbes’ Leviathan be called ‘unrealistically idealist’.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
How does that follow in any way?
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
First off, I love this conversation. I’m delayed because of a combo of sleep deprivation and working on a major design project in CAD. My creative CAD mindset is not very compatible with such a philosophical subject.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless. If their coercion is my only ethical or moral regulation, it is a poor motivator.
I think the vast majority of people historically and in the present are honest and want to be fair with each other. The majority of history is anonymous because good, regular honest people do not write or record their mundane lives. The recorded accounts that exist are from or about the notable monsters.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
That is offensive to me because of my situation and how the people that caused my physical disability had no repercussions. I was priced out of any restitution. I am quite literally the collateral damage with my life wrecked by this in so many ways I am not going to mention.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself. I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior. I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.
You’re asking a question that relates to IR theory of anarchy, and the short answer is that governments, on the national scale, carry out the same behavior that individuals do in the absence of central conflict resolution authority - and, in the same way, develop towards increasing centralization amongst themselves to fulfill the purpose of deterrence against outside forces (in the broadest sense, universalist orgs like the UN; in a narrower and more recognizable sense, supranational entities like NATO and the EU which have real, though not infinite, power to compel their members states).
Your question of “Why shouldn’t it?” is irrelevant; the correct question would be “Why doesn’t it?”, since what’s being discussed is the world as it is, not the world as we wish it to be.
And the answer to the latter question would be a negation of the base assertion that it doesn’t: it absolutely does, and has, through all of history, layered over a thousand different moral codes and cultural norms; that practical, opportunistic extension of violence by states and protostates has always reasserted itself in the absence of restraining factors. Just like it does in societies of individuals.
People are not just beliefs and cultures. People are animals as well, with animal desires and animal feelings, and, for that matter, limited information in any given situation. And again, you go back to ‘motivation’ when I’ve clearly and explicitly stated, in contradiction to that very claim, that it’s not a question of motivation, but restraint.
Holy fucking shit, man, if you think that modern states do nothing against theft, I really don’t know what the fuck to tell you. “The police don’t catch shoplifters!” is blatantly untrue, in any case - in fact, it’s one of the more pointless and resource-wasteful things they do in the modern day as part of performative security.
This is some libertarian “The market will regulate itself!” thinking that doesn’t actually work out the way it’s claimed to. Fuck’s sake.
You don’t see negative consequences as a deterrent.
That’s an, uh, interesting life philosophy you have there. I can’t help but imagine that you’ve had some exceptional luck to last this long with that in mind.
…
What the ever-loving fuck do you think theft and unlawful violence is being defined as here
Yes, this is why systems of retribution and coercion focus on performing retribution and violence on actors, instead of just punching blindly at the air?
… isn’t that contrary to your claim that you regulate the behavior of others with your own, rational self-interest market choices, not contrary to my claim of having subcontracted out regulation of market behavior to a centralized authority?
Christ.
This is probably the first time I’ve heard basic social contract theory in the vein of Hobbes’ Leviathan be called ‘unrealistically idealist’.
… okay?