[From Samuel Saunders 92007.08.02.0912 MDT0]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.02.0845 CDT)]
Samuel,
No, I am not being a contrarian. I just want to know what you mean by forced,
and what you mean by cooperation. That is, we have a system already in place
for cooperation, social security etc. However, for it not to be forced, must
you supercede the lawmakers (ie rule of man, not rule of law) to give your
personal approval to share? I think that is what is being a libertarian, that
you have to unilaterally decide for YOUR money. Therefore, it is the isolate
rule of man, not rule of law, and if you were a company owner, you would set up
your own kingdom to decide if you should contribute this month, this year, or
to this need. You are the contrarian, therefore, wanting to supercede the US
Constitution. Move elsewhere, I would say.--Bryan
Government is a special entity, because we allow it the privelege we forbid to all other entities of using force. If we object to the use of force in general as a means of achieving our ends, then we need to be very careful of what we allow government to do, and to be certain that the actions warrant the use of force. This implies that government should be limitted- as for example by the reservation clause of the US constitution. The proper scope of government is protection of life and property. Certainly beyond that, there is wide scope for cooperation. Providing housing and food for those unable to provide for themselves is a moral obligation, and I take seriously my obligation to do so. I welcome all who feel likewise obligated to join me, and I hope fervently that they will, but I find it repugnant to think about using force to take their property and their time should they be unwilling to offer them. How many people's rights are you willing to violate to achieve your goals- is it ok if 50% plus one person agree with you ? Does it take 60% ? Even with 90%, there are 10% who may stongly object. If these things are done through charities and other voluntary associations, then the rights of the objectors are respected, and there may even be a chance to convince them to join in as well. Are you suggesting that you are only willing to help others if you can be guaranteed that defectors will be punished, or at least forced to join you ? If you believe there is a need (for food, housing, medical care, education etc.), but are unable to convince 50% +1 to join you, are you justified in refusing to help ? I am trying to understand why you feel caring must be forced to be valid.
By the way, note that I am advocating use of discussion and debate to achieve respect for rights and cooperation, and not advocating the use of force, even in resisting what I see as inappropriate use of force, while you are not only advocating the use of force to achieve your ends, but suggesting expulsion of those who disagree with such use of force.
···
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:52:00AM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> [Samuel Saunders (2007.08.02.0019 MDT)]
>
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:14:16PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> > [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2300 CDT)]
> >
> > Samuel,
> >
> > Well, it's interesting how you put it. That communitarianism can be
> incompatible
> > with libertarianism. I don't think that this is the balance.
> >
> > Most primitive groups HAVE to cooperate, and the young males often act as
> > loners, taking chances to copulate and thereby spread their DNA or nip in
> to
> > grab some food, and then go back to their fringe groups. In that way,
> > libertarianism is compatible with communitarianism. Okay? But when the
> loners
> > turn into Mad Maxish marauding bands, or when loners seek to maintain their
> > independent lives within the walls of a community, upsetting agreements and
> > causing imbalances, then libertarianism is incompatible with
> communitarianism so
> > much so that they are removed from society, and put into isolation or
> killed
> > off.
> >
> > Yes, I think that cooperation is more likely than individuals duking it out
> for
> > scarce resources.
> >
> > I would not force loners with communitarianism, hahaha, but then I would
> not
> > expect that the libertarians would ever be allowed back into town, on our
> > streets, using our space, and breathing our air. Okay?
> >
> > --Bryan
> >
> >
>
> Bryan
>
> I can't tell if you are just being contrarian, or if you have no idea
> whatsoever of what libertarian means. I have no problem at all with
> cooperation- I think it is the best way of doing things, and I frequently
> give of my time and resources to help others. What I (and other
> libertarians) won't do is use force to get you to cooperate or help others.
> If you want to horde your resources, then so be it; I will continue to share
> mine and to encourage (but not force) others to do so as well. I will
> continue to argue that sharing and cooperation is the best course, but I will
> continue to respect the right of others to choose not to do so. I consider
> it a virtue to give my money to help those in need, but a crime for me to
> give your money to help those in need.
>
> > > [Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:32PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> > > > [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]
> > > >
> > > > Rick,
> > > >
> > > > It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.
> > > >
> > > > For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the
> > > implication of
> > > > lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for
> CONTROL
> > > at
> > > > the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
> > > > surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they
> cannot
> > > > CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of
> > > control
> > > > (somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way
> they
> > > would
> > > > want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when
> > > they
> > > > find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining,
> > > studying
> > > > and posting.
> > > >
> > > > However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that
> it
> > > > provided an explanation of personal control of perception through
> behavior
> > > > rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and
> perception.
> > > One of
> > > > the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled
> > > learners,
> > > > spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to
> > > authoritarian
> > > > control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.
> > > >
> > > > Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian
> > > view of
> > > > society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community
> rather
> > > than
> > > > individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick
> fights
> > > with
> > > > Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary,
> Clark
> > > > McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's
> work,
> > > but I
> > > > would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful
> life
> > > with
> > > > his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can
> finesse
> > > and
> > > > conquer his/her environment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is
> nothing
> > > incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as
> the
> > > communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_
> incompatible
> > > with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not
> to
> > > participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to
> > > their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be
> > > arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to
> that
> > > approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune
> and
> > > living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree
> to
> > > those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by
> force,
> > > then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't
> fair
> > > too well.
> > >
> > > From a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a
> gun
> > > in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.
> > >
> > > > So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here,
> it
> > > is
> > > > because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support
> for
> > > their
> > > > opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject
> my
> > > > hypotheses.
> > > >
> > > > --Bryan
> > > >
> > > > > [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > > > > > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > > > > > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> > > > > century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> > > > > (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> > > > > society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > > > > Lecturer in Psychology
> > > > > UCLA
> > > > > rsmarken@gmail.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
> > > saunders@westriverresearch.com
> > > Partner, West River Research Associates
>
> --
> Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
> saunders@westriverresearch.com
> Partner, West River Research Associates
--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates