Why should I, when it seems that you’ll just feel insulted and then try to insult me in return?
OK, then don’t.
Right. Let me know when you decide to act differently.
“GWil” is confusing two separate issues - what people do and what they ought to do. The difficult part is that it is very difficult to say what people ought to do except on the basis of what they do. This is because what it is to be human (what humans ought to do) is defined by what humans do.
To reason about the issue in less majestical terms, let’s look to the animal kingdom. Let’s say there is a massive oil tanker spill covering many square miles of open ocean and there is a flock of birds headed across this spill. At some point, the birds will have to stop and rest on the water before continuing on. When they land, they will be mired in the oil and most of them - maybe all of them - will die.
We can say that “the birds ought not to fly over the oil slick” - but what can this possibly means since they’re doing it anyway? In general, we can only make normative statements about animal behavior based on the nature of the animal species, that is, by investigating the principles by which the animal species operates and considering whether a particular animal’s behavior conforms with these principles. A rabid dog clearly acts in a manner contrary to its own nature. It is ill and it “ought” to be acting differently.
When we apply this same process of reasoning to human beings, the quandary remains. If I see you doing something “contrary” to your own nature, you are also a data point that this sort of behavior should be considered PART OF human nature.
There is no doubt that there is a moral double-standard between parent and child but there is equally little doubt that this is part of human nature. The coercive aspects of parenting play a causal role in their children’s survival. Consider a parent giving an infant an enema (not pleasant even to infants) who does not want it. Such behavior to an adult peer would be a severe and grotesque tort but it seems perfectly natural to me that an parent would induce its infant child to undergo an enema if it was medically necessary.
There is also a moral double-standard between the State and the citizenry. To an extent, this moral double-standard must have a basis in human nature just as the parent’s double-standard with respect to the child does. It is an arbitrary distinction to count non-State order as “natural” and State order as “artificial” and “unnatural.”
But, at the same time, much of the State order is like the misguided flock of birds flying towards the oil slick. We can clearly see the harm that will come to the individuals and the group as a whole as a result and there does not appear to be any purpose being served by this harm. It appears to be pure, blind waste based on ignorance and miscalculation.
If we are going to develop meaningful, normative prescriptions against the State order, then we’re goign to have to be less arbitrary in separating what is unnatural about the State order from what is natural about it. This is the flaw in the natural law approach… the derivation of human nature is arbitrary, it includes the elements of human history and human behavior that lead to a certain picture of human nature in which the State order appears unnatural but choosing different elements of human history and behavior gives a picture in which the State order is perfectly natural.
I think we need an even bigger picture that can subsume both views, a picture that takes into account all of human behavior without exception and makes it possible to offer normative prescriptions against the State order without the need to claim that the State qua State is “unnatural.” Such a claim is contentious and easily ignored (by simply noting the widespread and persistent existence of States) and unnecessary to making the case for many specific changes to the status quo which would result in a healthier social order.
Clayton -
I was being too optimistic then.
Its not not normative, I mean, it is normative. I agree with you there (actually I think its more complicated, but its not important here). All I’m saying is that we can discuss normative concepts positively by recognizing that things like legitimacy, regardless of the grounds that justify it, is a precondition for real worlds things.
No. The concept “thief” essentially contains the concept of illegitimate power, while the action of taking may or may not be ok. In other words, the difference between taking something and stealing something is the difference between having or not having authority.
I fail to see how legitimacy is a fact of an object, event, situation, etc. aside from the fact that a person thinks something is legitimate (or not).
Okay. I guess my question to you at this point is, what do you think makes power legitimate? That is, under what conditions do you think it’s legitimate?
Etienne de la Boetie talked about how a government necessarily depends on popular support because they do not have the numbers or raw power to actually subjugate the entire population. An illegitimate government cannot last without either gaining legitimacy or coming up with the man power to maintain the kind of force needed to demand property from its citizens.
So without knowing exactly what makes something legitimate, and without even knowing what legitimacy looks like, we can observe institutions that could not exist otherwise and deduce that they must in fact be legitimate.
I don’t really know, to be honest.
I think “illegitimate government” means “a government which is at least widely considered illegitimate by the people who live under it”. The same thing applies to “legitimate government”. Otherwise, I don’t see any difference between what you’re putting forth and the notion of “might makes right”.
Let’s say you’re walking down a street and a man walks up to you. He points a gun at you and demands you to give him your money. You comply and he walks off. Would you say that his exercise of power was legitimate because you went along with it?
I don’t think you can know there, because legitimacy is normative, a.k.a. subjective. It comes from within, not from outside.
So with that said, what do you yourself think makes power legitimate?
The difference between this and my example is that governments hold significantly less potential force against their citizens than an armed robber against his single victim. Imagine if that armed robber walked into a banquet hall of 1500 people and asked them to each hand over whatever money they had, because he had the authority to demand so. If they didn’t, he would ask again later, and maybe eventually use force to take it from them. If the majority of people complied, how else could we describe the situation besides recognizing that he held legitimate power?
And when I say legitimate, I don’t mean in some real cosmice sense, I mean as far as the parties involved are concerned. So yeah, its subjective, but subjective things can become intersubjectively verifiable. For example, “better off” is a subjective concept, but we also know that both parties are better off ex ante in an exchange. So if an exchange occurs, suddenly we can talk about so and so being better off without being caught up in the subjectivity of what being “better off” really means.
Conventions and actual or perceived utility probably drives popular opinion to grant legitimacy, as well as some aspect of rational inquiry which ends up in conventions and utilitarianism.
I think the quote in the op is a very common mindset. I think it is rooted in a misunderstanding of anarchy and a lack of depth in the understanding of authority and coercion. He is right in saying that a parent telling their child not swim is a form of coercion, but by trying to associate that sort of interaction or relationship, with the relationship between the state and individual, he is misrepresenting state coercion. I would argue that the family can be a good example of anarchy. How each individual within the family, once the children are of a responsible age, can go about their business to accomplish their goals, without a constant coercive force guiding them and assisting them. Of course that depends on the type of parents and family environment, but that just brings me back to the first point of it realy being a bad analogy.
The real miscalculation of human nature is that by setting up a monopoly on authority and coercion that it will not be corrupted and an even worse scenario will be the result. Government adds to the problem that is human nature (in that context) and does not solve it.
He obviously lacks the ability to foresee a police and justice system without a state monopoly over those services. To say that it is nothing more than a state is non nonsensical and a bad argument or point. He firstly lays out a character of the state by loosely defining his perception or misunderstanding of anarchism as being an aspect of the current state. Then he goes on to label this characteristic as nothing more than the state, when it is only one aspect of the state anyway.
Boetie also hinted at the power of sociopathy and I think that plays a key role in the power of the State. An ordinary man in a struggle with another ordinary man who is trying to rob him has a statistically even chance of winning. Given some home-turf advantages (such as knowing the layout of his own home, neighborhood, having family, friends and neighbors nearby, etc.) the victim may actually be at a slight advantage to the aggressor, even if the aggressor had the element of surprise. But an ordinary man in a struggle against a sociopathic man stands little chance. The difference is in the physiology and psychology of the two men. It is like a household dog getting in a fight with a timber wolf - he doesn’t stand a chance.
When you’re in a fight-or-flight situation, a cascade of physiological effects happen to you. Your consciousness goes into tunnel-vision focus on the threat, your outer limbs become weak and shaky as your brain re-routes blood from the limbs to your core to increase your chances of surviving wounds to your extremities, your heart rate goes up to near tachycardia, your breathing becomes shallow and rapid. For the sociopath who is a practiced murderer, none of these reactions happen. He retains normal situational awareness of his surroundings, he retains his usual strength and composure and his vital signs remain in their normal working range. To get an idea what I’m talking about, watch the movie No Country for Old Men. Javier Bardem well delivers his role as the cold-blooded sociopathic killer Anton Chigurh.
The sociopath retains his composure for the simple reason that he’s practiced at killing. The sociopath experiences no more of a moral crisis in killing a human being than does the experienced hunter in killing a buck. Sure, there is the exhiliration of success when the quarry has been killed but this is the same kind of excitement you experience when making a basket during a brisk game of basketball.
In this sense, the sociopath really is a kind of “superman”, that is, he can take on a wildly disproportionate number of foes. A small army of sociopaths could take on immense numbers of ordinary soldiers. It is my view that this is precisely what the elite core of intelligence/military-black-ops units are - they form a small cadre of remorseless, highly-experienced, prolific killers. It is not their training or even their equipment that makes them so deadly, it is their complete willingness to kill without hesitation. The ring of “special ops” soldiers surrounding this core cadre serve the all-important role of (unknowingly) lending legitimacy to the murdering sociopaths in the core. Special ops soldiers are the most dedicated and disciplined people in the military. They are typically outstanding role models of all the virtues. A tiny number of them will be selected to “move on” to special activities and “black ops” roles - those are the sociopaths.
Now, pit those sociopaths against not trained soldiers, but millions, billions of obedient slaves.
This is how the world is really run. This is why you have to pay taxes. Depressing, sure, but just remember that you can’t possibly escape your prison as long as you’re blind to the walls and fences. Seeing them is the first step to breaking out.
Clayton -
My hang-up is over your use of words like “recognizing” in this context. Such words to me imply facts about the world. If you mean “recognizing that those people believe**d that he held legitimate power”, why not just say that? Or do words like “recognizing” convey different meanings to you in this context from those they convey to me?
Again, I would say that we don’t know that both parties are better off ex post in an exchange. We only know that both parties believe that they are each better off. Indeed, I think that’s the only thing we can know there (if anything at all).
So if “popular opinion” is “driven” to grant legitimacy to something, you yourself necessarily find it to be legitimate as well? Or what?
From what I’ve read, hardly all sociopaths/psychopaths are practiced at killing. And they’re hardly immune from the physiological effects of fight-or-flight situations. Different psychopaths have different goals, just like non-psychopaths. To treat them as all being like Hannibal Lector or Michael Myers is highly inaccurate. (Plus those are fictional characters anyway, as is Anton Chigurh.)
Great video though. In my opinion, it gives the lie to the notion that the world is run - at least entirely - by murderous psychopaths. So I think the far greater danger is the “chain of obedience” - all the people are willing to listen to and obey “authority” simply because it “is” “authority”.
It is ex ante, i.e. according to the value scales of the two parties a split-second before the exchange occurs.
But if they saw themselves as being better off ex ante, why would they enter into an exchange at all?
Ex ante refers to the moment of valuation, i.e. that prior to the exchange. Those engaging in voluntary exchange are better off as a result of the exchange according to the value scales ex ante. E.g. At this moment Smith values an apple more than an orange, Jones values an orange more than an apple. If they were to enter into exchange of an apple for an orange, each party would necessarily benefit due to each actor’s valuation of these goods ex ante.
Of course, the concept of the value scale is merely employed for the interpretation of action and cannot be described apart from action - but as in this example it is useful for the formulation of theory.
Thanks for the clarification! I stand corrected.
The Moncler Chinese Mainland’s first flagship store in Shanghai Plaza, the 130-square-meter store people feel the Moncler brand of modern luxury the the Shanghai boutique design represents a milestone in the development of the brand in China, Moncler continued global expansion, followingshop in Paris, Milan, London and Hong Kong, the recent succession.