People said that same thing about out-right, private slavery. But it appears to be quite rare at this point.
So? It’s true in one case, and not necessarily true in the other. Though, on the average, I do think there are examples of chattel slavery operations that have raised the average level of social integration in an area.
Well, you failed to prove or elucidate these “many shades”, all you really did is try destroy the concept.
You fail to understand the absurdity of the concept of axiomatic ‘aggression’. What is or is not ‘aggression’ is a social convention, not an extrapersonal fact.
I’m well aware of customary law. The point is that customary law abides simply be the interest of those who make and are involved in the law. The corporate entities that enforce the law within a coherent domain are what are known as governments. These are not necessarily states - they are simply people interested, and powerful enough, to prevent barbarians from running around willy-nilly.
To the support of attempting to destroy the concept and muddy the waters, I gather there is a reason you put‘initiate’ in brackets.
I say you can call it what you want, I care about results acceptable to me, not your normative nonsense.
In response to the OP, yes i think there’s a connection, but I tend to think that economic freedom is more important than civil freedoms, for me at least. I’m not gay and I have no need for abortions.
Freedom without order is anarchy. This is why, for example, there is censorship of press in Singapore on political topics: to prevent the inflammation of democratic tendencies.
Freedom is meaningless, anarchy is a joke. I suppose one could bring up things like power, but that would tend to obfuscate meaning as it has too much baggage to give the term much useful meaning. As far as democratic vs autocratic preferences, calling one set of principles “elite” and “civilization” is just choosing vanilla over chocolate (unless you just mean who happens to be in power at the time).
People tend to be status seeking, hierarchical and social signaling beings, perhaps why in this day and age the left wing will always prevail. There is a plethora of reasons and ways the left allows more people to gain in social signaling (at least the kind that resonates with people, hence why it is in power). I do not think this can be underestimated enough when considering why the left is and most likely will remain in power for some time.
I am very curious as to where you are getting your sociology from. I could be wrong but, it seems kind of ad hoc and trying to justify an aesthetic and a political position, not that most sociology (that I have come across) isn’t, sociology seems to be the Zeppo Marx of science.
What concern should people have for civilization (Civilization?)? The way you seem to define it, is it possible to say that it has been empirically proven to be a failure? That is it doesn’t exist and people will most likely continue to reject it for any forseeable future. So wouldn’t talking of such things be the equivlent to talking about Easter Bunnies and ghosts?
I’m using it in the sense of civil freedom or Manchester freedom. I do not here intend to imply that people ought to intrinsically favor this. What I do mean is that, given plausible alternatives, this is what I prefer. I know my Stirner as well as you do.
as far as democratic vs autocratic preferences, calling one set of principles “elite” and “civilization” is just choosing vanilla over chocolate
What I mean by civilization is the increase of commercial integration, security and cultural development. One could be against civilization (there are lots of gang-banger types who are, not to mention Bob Black). I just happen to not care what these people think/want.
There is a plethora of reasons and ways the left allows more people to gain in social signaling
Unfortunately for the left with its decentralization it thins power to the point where most people don’t even care to try for it. What’s more, it is also inherently implosive. This is not to say I am ‘right-wing’, more that I am anti-left. Of course, realistically, nothing I say will have any impact in my lifetime on my actual circumstances. This is sociology for the sake of entertainment, and also the fun I have messing with libertarians and other lefties.
3. I am very curious as to where you are getting your sociology from.
Well, I’m informal and lazy about it, but I take mostly from the good economists (Mises), Robert Nisbet, Edmund Burke, Carlyle, Oakeshott and a bajillion other people. It’s definitely patchwork, but I think it’s consistent. And my ‘sociology’ I do not mean that nonsensical pseudo-science taught in Universities.
4. What concern should people have for civilization (Civilization?)?
Whatever they please. My purpose is not to convince anyone, but to have fun proposing alternative scenarios to the an-caps and Progressives. Ones I happen to think could be enjoyable (from my own perspective), and would therefore be more than happy to see forcibly imposed, but not ones I am expecting (or even encouraging) anyone else to support.
I disagree. Then again I do not believe in magical ‘rights’ or some sort of automatic delination of ‘aggression’. These are all things made up by people with no real existence outside of social conventions and individual imaginations.
That is always a good thing. I have some semi rare links and Amazon finds if you want me to send them your way.
Thus far the best I can come up with for sociology is mixing history (taking a somewhat empathetic or nihilistic look at the subject, as I refuse any consistent grand theories), biology, anthropology, and most importantly social psych (which, like all psych, can get cranky) mixed with Mises and Hayek (though I am no expert on either of the two). It is still too much work and effort to have any worth for a personal view at this point, I have been hoping to be pointed to a decent modern sociology that someone could recomend. It is sad that hasn’t happened, as it seems like a promising field that got botched by lefties or polemics in general. I have been wondering if all that matters for “sociology” is social psych for a “quicky” view of decent sociology.
Of course, because rape is only the initiation of physical aggression in certain places where it is considered so, in the proper social convention. [8-)]
"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
Rothbard, For A New Liberty, p. 23. See also idem, The Ethics of Liberty: “The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership” (p. 60), and “What … aggressive violence means is that one man invades the property of another without the victim’s consent. The invasion may be against a man’s property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass)” (p. 45)"
What is so hard to understand?
"Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.
For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one’s own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership -either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.
These rules -which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”- can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind."
Furthermore go read “Physical Invasion”.
And.. ah, lol it’s not customary law.
I recommend you contact Jacob Bloom, you guys would hit it off.
Special pleading fallacy. Seems like you’ve come full circle. You are what you hate. That, being the “barbarians”.
A) I think I may abhore your aesthetics, being that if I had to define myself on political terms your word of “anti-leftist” is as good as any makes it some what suprising to me (though politics and econ are somewhat tertiary to my concern, so that could explain the aesthetic gap). If I read it correctly, it seems like some type of “nerdtopia” and a bourgoisie neoscientism / technocracy that overvalues “civilization”; and by civilization I would mean a Hoppe type bastardization of the word considering only the past 250-500 year viewpoint of the “correct” countries with the “correct” lense and terminology ( I also think his view point inherently invites the insanity that is fashionable leftism.) I am usually not one to argue off aesthetics (or what “civilization” means for that matter), but if this is why you ae here, what the hell.
B) I would also think such a view could only be practicly upheld (in any thought experiment I am capable of) by some micro-state/micro-city in an environment that would allow massive decentralization. The “barbarians” could not be allowed to live in the city and would have to be content not to. I am struggling seeing how this is practicle to think about in a “broad” sense, and I don’t know if it could even exist in the environment I just gave.
C) You mentioned “emergence” in a previous post. Are you a materialist or do you just use that word poetically/ for convienence? If you are not a materialist and you also would be in an existential egoist/nihilist camp (assuming you mostly agree with Stirner), how do you reconcile that view point?
You have more in common with the liberals than you think. There are no philosopher kings/benevolent wheel turners who “create order and security.” Security and order are not things to be created, they are the result of freedom. A society which tries to forcefully create order cannot at the same time be free.
This is called serfdom. Civilization is a rather vague concept which tells us nothing about the tenability of various forms of societal organization.
It’s a universal social convention. Civilization must ipso facto (a) understand the concept of aggression (the violation of property rights; the initiation of force against property), and (b) disincentivize aggression if it wishes to exist for any sustainable period of time. Those philosopher kings who thought law and property to be mere arbitrary social conventions had there heads taken off, or were hung upside down and repeatedly stabbed to death, in front of angry crowds. Markets, innovation, order, and prosperity are contingent upon the ability to keep the fruits of your endeavors (property rights).
Moral nihilism is all the rage these days. There is truth in the universe (the interconnectedness of all phenomena and the regularity of their sequence) and laws of human action; in order to achieve Y one must do X. No state, council, senate, or whatever is able to over-turn or side-step this indubitable fact.
and by civilization I would mean a Hoppe type bastardization of the word considering only the past 250-500 year viewpoint of the “correct” countries with the “correct” lense and terminology
While I don’t quite go along with Hoppe’s oddities in many areas, I do basically mean ‘techno-industrial western civilization’. As has been pointed out on TakiMag’s article “Why Africa Must Go To Hell” there certainly may be groups of people who just can’t or don’t want that sort of organization. I say, fuck 'em. I like my eurasian technophilia.
B) I would also think such a view could only be practicly upheld (in any thought experiment I am capable of) by some micro-state/micro-city in an environment that would allow massive decentralization.
Yes, it is obviously confined to small, controllable areas where you can attract enough able and willing people. Beyond that at best you can have an imperial sphere of influence where you make the natives behave well enough to let the Chinese traders pass through unmolested. What the rest of the unwashed masses do I am indifferent to.
C) You mentioned “emergence” in a previous post.
I meant it in the sense of ‘develops through systemic, contingent circumstances’.
Moral nihilism is all the rage these days.
I wouldn’t call it ‘the rage’ at any time, but what do you mean by ‘these days’? Have you ever read Gorgias by Plato? Moral nihilism is as old as curmudgeons.
There is truth in the universe (the interconnectedness of all phenomena and the regularity of their sequence) and laws of human action; in order to achieve Y one must do X. No state, council, senate, or whatever is able to over-turn or side-step this indubitable fact.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with normatives.
Of course it does. Once you understand the laws of human action and that there are various natural constraints (scarcity, for example), you can employ logic and figure out what we should do. A king, for example, should not debase the coinage (violate property rights) if he wishes to remain in power, ect.
Yes, I realize that moral nihilism is nothing new. I was reacting to the fact that there is an increasing amount of moral nihilists here on the Mises forums.
While I don’t quite go along with Hoppe’s oddities in many areas, I do basically mean ‘techno-industrial western civilization’. As has been pointed out on TakiMag’s article “Why Africa Must Go To Hell” there certainly may be groups of people who just can’t or don’t want that sort of organization. I say, fuck 'em. I like my eurasian technophilia.
I was actually talking about his (or any other libertarians) interest in actual civilized countries that had just as good of a chance to “break through” or are slightly different than some Western country. Essentially N.Africa, E. Europe, Asia (Think Byzantium, Russia, Calliphites, China, etc). They are more than happy to do some kind of forced genesis in Spain and completly ignore Islamic Scholorship (Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Sina are almost as good as Aristotle) / contributions to market theory for one example.
Granted, at least the past 250 years is all about the West, but still.
And the railing against technophilia was more about it being boring and just another insane integrated system than anything. I still struggle with wondering why anyone would get their jollies off of conforming a society to their interests at the time. Geeks ruling a place would be just as bad as jocks, artists, rednecks, etc.
Yes, it is obviously confined to small, controllable areas where you can attract enough able and willing people.
Doesn’t this kind of derail any need to talk about this then? I mean isn’t it more important to focus on how to have an environment to create this situation (i.e. the world outside the mini state)? The mini state would just be a by product of the environment; the larger environment as a whole is the real issue, correct?
“you can employ logic and figure out what we should do”
Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? Such information only gives us constraints as to what is possible, and what actual actions we take depends on the specific values one possesses. Furthermore these values are individuals, incommesurable and may directly conflict with one another.
“I was reacting to the fact that there is an increasing amount of moral nihilists here on the Mises forums.”
Blame the jews.
“Essentially N.Africa, E. Europe, Asia (Think Byzantium, Russia, Calliphites, China”
Oh, well, I don’t really get the eurocentrism. Europe is one case of spectacular success (in some areas), but there are certainly other races and cultures that probably have the same sort of potential (and maybe more, in the case of awesome Koreans like me).
“Doesn’t this kind of derail any need to talk about this then?”
No, I’m not a global crusader. I’m about my kind of people, the miserly, selfish, conceited and vaguely racist eurasians.
Here is where I am getting confused, or missing the point in a big way. I thought it was about “proposing alternative scenarios…” for funzies. The mini technocracy city-state could be involved in an alternate type scenario, but I would think it would depend on a scenario that would be able to nurture the thing. In other words, it could only be a by product of some other catalyst. I would think that catalyst would be the scenario that would be the important thing to talk about. Either that, or all I can picture is you talking about paying less/zero taxes with some of your computer programming friends in your house/apt and selling shit and maybe hire an outside maid and pool boy if you get rich enough.
It not only tells us what is possible (and therefore what is also impossible), but also reveals ways to achieve ends (appropriate means, and therefore inappropriate means). The subjective moral judgments of individuals are unimportant; the consequences of all actions are set in stone. Moral nihilism is just regular old and boring nihilism. If you want to stop an inflation you must slow down the printing press, and if a ruler wants to remain in power he must gain the consent of the majority. This means that he must do what’s in the best interests of the majority, and once he fails to do so, his rule must eventually come to an end. Thus, your philosopher King’s decree to ban Marxism is meaningless; it can only exist insofar as society allows it to exist.
Every single individual is just that, a mere individual. Individuals have no control over the “extended order.” A sustainable societal arrangement is one which is self-regulating; an equilibrium condition (cannot be created; has to emerge). I see no difference between your political philosophy and the political philosophy of leftists. You all believe that you can actually direct individuals into action against their wills for an extended period of time.
I know I am reviving an old thread but I just now finally read this article; do you agree with the assessment of this article? It is really only Sub-Congo river Africa (a relatively small chunk of Africa) that had a general lack of civilization. Ethiopia, Kush (present day Somalia), Mali, etc these were all legit civilizations and civilized areas until I think somewhat recently. These people had civilization that was modern at one point (to the standards of the time). This article completely wrote that off. These countries are hell now, but I do not think it is due to a tribalistic genetic predisposition.
Sub-Congo culture could be assessed differently perhaps. I would think the easiest and most obvious starting point to look at though would be lack of contact/exposure to the outside world, a smaller population and gene pool than the outside world, and an environment in which animal domestication/land cultivation/etc is not so easily obtained. Either way, I think there are alternate scenario mental exercises that could be done when looking at history in which it could have “naturally” integrated in with the world economy without “White Man’s Guilt”.
Note: Outside of maybe Ethiopia or Mali my actual knowledge of Sub Sahara Africa is somewhat limited and after about 1500 almost nil, and usually only in relation to other more prominent civs at the time (e.g. Kush to Egypt). I do not know much (outside of a basic 101 text knowledge) of how the Europeans conquered or governed this area. When and how the shit really hit the fan for Africa I do not pretend to know, though I have my guesses.
I know I am reviving an old thread but I just now finally read this article; do you agree with the assessment of this article? It is really only Sub-Congo river Africa (a relatively small chunk of Africa) that had a general lack of civilization. Ethiopia, Kush (present day Somalia), Mali, etc these were all legit civilizations and civilized areas until I think somewhat recently. These people had civilization that was modern at one point (to the standards of the time). This article completely wrote that off. These countries are hell now, but I do not think it is due to a tribalistic genetic predisposition.
Whether or not they would could easily be discovered by ceasing to interfere with African politics. They certainly aren’t being helped by western democratic bullshit. Personally I think there is something to the human biodiversity explanation (in population groups and within them), but I am agnostic as to the exact extent of its general influence. Modern society is much to under the sway of obviously outcome distorting ideological and historical situations that make it hard to say just what would happen if these things weren’t going on.
Sub-Congo culture could be assessed differently perhaps. I would think the easiest and most obvious starting point to look at though would be lack of contact/exposure to the outside world, a smaller population and gene pool than the outside world, and an environment in which animal domestication/land cultivation/etc is not so easily obtained. Either way, I think there are alternate scenario mental exercises that could be done when looking at history in which it could have “naturally” integrated in with the world economy without “White Man’s Guilt”.
Or those societies could have remained tribal irrelevants, and more advanced societies could have usurped the territory (as was the case with Native Americans).
Note: Outside of maybe Ethiopia or Mali my actual knowledge of Sub Sahara Africa is somewhat limited and after about 1500 almost nil, and usually only in relation to other more prominent civs at the time (e.g. Kush to Egypt). I do not know much (outside of a basic 101 text knowledge) of how the Europeans conquered or governed this area. When and how the shit really hit the fan for Africa I do not pretend to know, though I have my guesses.
Most of sub-saharan Africa has no history. The Europeans managed to (for a while) run it with some semblence of order. Once the idea of ‘national liberation’, socialism and people’s statism it spelled the doom for the colonial government that had raised the standard of living of these barbarians far above the level they ever would have obtained by their own efforts in hundreds of years. They wanted black government, and the white governments (which still do rule the Earth) gave it to them. Great job they’ve done of it. Now every half-intelligent African wants nothing more than to leave the country.