Socrates’ criticism of democracy (i.e why its BS)

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation. 

 

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus:

1. Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good.
2. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate.
3. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise.
4. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions.

It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation. 

 

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus:

1. Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good.
2. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate.
3. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise.
4. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions.

It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature.

 

Edited for clarity.

 

I think you're projecting your personal view way too much into your model of what the state is, and you're quite possibly ignoring a fact that you are clearly stating. If you know people are evil then how would removing the one thing that keeps them reined in be a good thing? What do you mean by acknowledging history and human nature? For someone who seems to hate the state you seem very keen to use its byproducts to support your ideology.

Also government isn't compulsory, its is just expansive and hard to get away from but you're free to go into the wilderness and live off the grid in whatever country you wish.

I don't understand how you say that evil comes from humans and yet somehow the state is guilty of fostering, if such thing were true then no one would be subjugated to it for long periods of time. 

 

Also, there are some things you seem to be ignoring: The only reason why you have a concept of "better" or anarchy or virtue is because the state allowed men to specialize in tasks and gave a vehicle to those ideas. 

Quite frankly (and I mean no offense) you're coming off as an edgy teenager that has started rebelling against his/her father (the state) for no reason, despite all that it did for them.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation. 

 

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus:

1. Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good.
2. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate.
3. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise.
4. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions.

It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature.

 

Edited for clarity.

 

 

 

I think you're projecting your personal view way too much into your model of what the state is, and you're quite possibly ignoring a fact that you are clearly stating. If you know people are evil then how would removing the one thing that keeps them reined in be a good thing? What do you mean by acknowledging history and human nature? For someone who seems to hate the state you seem very keen to use its byproducts to support your ideology.

Also government isn't compulsory, its is just expansive and hard to get away from but you're free to go into the wilderness and live off the grid in whatever country you wish.

I don't understand how you say that evil comes from humans and yet somehow the state is guilty of fostering, if such thing were true then no one would be subjugated to it for long periods of time. 

 

Also, there are some things you seem to be ignoring: The only reason why you have a concept of "better" or anarchy or virtue is because the state allowed men to specialize in tasks and gave a vehicle to those ideas. 

Quite frankly (and I mean no offense) you're coming off as an edgy teenager that has started rebelling against his/her father (the state) for no reason, despite all that it did for them.

 

I can understand why you might perceive me that way. I am passionate about this, but I also make a point to speak in basic and unambiguous terms (invoking, oppression, theft, murder) to cut to the root.

 

First, one cannot remove their participation from The State. If I and a group of others were to hypothetically homestead wilderness, we would be fine until we were discovered. Once discovered, we'd be taxed under threat of violence and likely fined for not abiding by that territory's authority (building permits, etc.). The situation would then be binary. Fight for freedom and potentially die, or submit and be yoked. This cannot be argued.

 

Second, I do not believe The State keeps evil people restrained. For the most part, it gives them employment. That employment also gives them power to organize and propel society towards degrees of destruction and atrocity that would never be possible if people had to freely unite and pool scarce resources to commit. Governments give us tanks, hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, etc. These things are wildly impractical, expensive, dangerous to produce, and provide absolutely no productive value. There is absolutely no incentive to develop these kinds of devices outside of State violence. No doubt there might be some turf wars or family blood feuds, but these are trivial in comparison to scale of wars and destruction that only a State can engender.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If Anarchy destroyed the State, Bob Saget wouldn't have been accused of raping and murdering a girl in 1990. Checkmate statist scum.

 

Ps, private property in an anarchist world would be impossible to enforce without violating the idea of anarchy. If you kept the principle of private property, you would be creating a feudalist environment.

[Namutree]

If Anarchy destroyed the State, Bob Saget wouldn't have been accused of raping and murdering a girl in 1990. Checkmate statist scum.

 

Ps, private property in an anarchist world would be impossible to enforce without violating the idea of anarchy. If you kept the principle of private property, you would be creating a feudalist environment.

I don't know about impossible, but at the very least seems improbable.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation. 

 

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus:

1. Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good.
2. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate.
3. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise.
4. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions.

It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature.

 

Edited for clarity.

 

 

 

I think you're projecting your personal view way too much into your model of what the state is, and you're quite possibly ignoring a fact that you are clearly stating. If you know people are evil then how would removing the one thing that keeps them reined in be a good thing? What do you mean by acknowledging history and human nature? For someone who seems to hate the state you seem very keen to use its byproducts to support your ideology.

Also government isn't compulsory, its is just expansive and hard to get away from but you're free to go into the wilderness and live off the grid in whatever country you wish.

I don't understand how you say that evil comes from humans and yet somehow the state is guilty of fostering, if such thing were true then no one would be subjugated to it for long periods of time. 

 

Also, there are some things you seem to be ignoring: The only reason why you have a concept of "better" or anarchy or virtue is because the state allowed men to specialize in tasks and gave a vehicle to those ideas. 

Quite frankly (and I mean no offense) you're coming off as an edgy teenager that has started rebelling against his/her father (the state) for no reason, despite all that it did for them.

 

I can understand why you might perceive me that way. I am passionate about this, but I also make a point to speak in basic and unambiguous terms (invoking, oppression, theft, murder) to cut to the root.

 

First, one cannot remove their participation from The State. If I and a group of others were to hypothetically homestead wilderness, we would be fine until we were discovered. Once discovered, we'd be taxed under threat of violence and likely fined for not abiding by that territory's authority (building permits, etc.). The situation would then be binary. Fight for freedom and potentially die, or submit and be yoked. This cannot be argued.

 

Second, I do not believe The State keeps evil people restrained. For the most part, it gives them employment. That employment also gives them power to organize and propel society towards degrees of destruction and atrocity that would never be possible if people had to freely unite and pool scarce resources to commit. Governments give us tanks, hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, etc. These things are wildly impractical, expensive, dangerous to produce, and provide absolutely no productive value. There is absolutely no incentive to develop these kinds of devices outside of State violence. No doubt there might be some turf wars or family blood feuds, but these are trivial in comparison to scale of wars and destruction that only a State can engender.

 

I said that it was expansive but not impossible, there are still areas in the world where there is no civilization or where it exists in its lowest stage. Although I would't recommend settling there without some psychopathic murderers to protect you from the other psychopathic murderers.

 

Anarchy is very naive, it ignores both the state of nature and society's benefits in favor of some ideal version of humanity that can exists with each other with no moderation.

I still haven't seen my points about the futility of Anarchy as it just reverts humanity to an earlier stage from which they will work their way back to a society. Or about how those virtues you base your alternative on, emerged from society.

You seem to treat the state as a nebulous cognizant entity where in reality it is just made of people whose quality determines the state of the nation. I don't think you have a clear basis on both what the state is and what individuals are. I would like to hear what you think those concepts are. 

[Darth InSidious]

Google produces no results for OPs quotation, FWIW.

 

However, if we're going to play with ancient proof-texts...

 

 

 

As the roaring of a lion, so also is the dread of a king: he that provoketh him, sinneth against his own soul.

[213374U]

Arresting thieves does reduce theft however as most people weigh the risks vs rewards in regards to crime motivated by rational profit. If people knew they wouldn't be imprisoned for robbing a store, you could bet robbery would be far more common.

 

This is a simplistic picture of a phenomenon that is quite complex. In addition, you are working from some assumptions. Chiefly,

 

a) that thieves act rationally, in the sense that that they can accurately judge the optimal risk/reward ratio in the different courses of action available to them, and

 

b) that thieves are pushed to thievery out of choice and not need.

 

We know that (a) is simply not true. Prison inmates are known to have a lower IQ than average (1) (2), which translates into a markedly worse ability to judge the idoneity of a given course of action. This can lead to people making seemingly "dumb" choices that land them in prison. In addition, Dunning-Kruger is a mechanism which may help explain why less intelligent people consistently believe they can get away with crime.

 

Now, the most controversial point is by far b). Please understand that I'm not a crime apologist — I'm simply trying to discuss whether the huge drain on resources that a prison system entails has any effect on crime rates. You might argue that there is always an alternative to stealing. Even if we accept that, that's not the point. Rather, the point is whether people who steal are able to see that alternative. Owing to the intelligence argument, we know that people with lower IQ or developmental disabilities have more trouble negotiating difficult situations. That should be enough to give you an idea of why prisons don't serve to deter the majority of criminals* — they simply don't think they'll end up there!

 

*remember, you are only a criminal if you are caught and convicted. An argument could be made that very few really intelligent criminals are caught. Considering that intelligence is mostly inherited, how fair is that?

 

I'm not a sociologist, but untested suppositions and tradition aren't enough to convince me that crime rates are affected by their legal consequences more than they are by, say, economic causes.

 

 

 

Unified for defense. Having a government ensures your society will fight as a single entity. Michigan likely has less military power than Canada. If the US had not maintained itself as a single unified society; there would be no certainty that if Canada were to invade; any one would help us. We would just be overrun and conquered; what would our fate be then? That would be up to Canada. If we're unlucky we get forced into slavery and all our land taken from us. If we're lucky we get absorbed into Canada and made into second class citizens for a few decades.

 

Remember what happened between the Native Americans and the US? They were a collection of micro societies. How did that work out for them?

 

So, you are saying that statist oppression is a necessary evil to defend against... foreign statist oppresion. This is the line of thinking that almost plunged the world into nuclear war in the 60's and 80's, and the line of thinking that has enabled tyrannies to take hold since, well, forever. I can turn this argument around and suggest that unified resistance may encourage the enemy to use even more force to achieve its aims than it would otherwise, as exemplified by the US nuking Japan into submission, for instance.

 

The truth is you can resist a foreign oppressor exactly the same way you resist a native one: as passively or actively as circumstances allow. There is functionally no difference because oppression is oppression is oppression, and once made a second-class citizen the causes and means by which this is accomplished matter little. Going to die in a war to resist foreign invasion because that's preferable to dying at home being accused of treason and shot is a proposition I find difficult to defend, but, eh.

[Namutree]

 

Arresting thieves does reduce theft however as most people weigh the risks vs rewards in regards to crime motivated by rational profit. If people knew they wouldn't be imprisoned for robbing a store, you could bet robbery would be far more common.

 

This is a simplistic picture of a phenomenon that is quite complex. In addition, you are working from some assumptions. Chiefly,

 

a) that thieves act rationally, in the sense that that they can accurately judge the optimal risk/reward ratio in the different courses of action available to them, and

 

b) that thieves are pushed to thievery out of choice and not need.

 

We know that (a) is simply not true. Prison inmates are known to have a lower IQ than average (1) (2), which translates into a markedly worse ability to judge the idoneity of a given course of action. This can lead to people making seemingly "dumb" choices that land them in prison. In addition, Dunning-Kruger is a mechanism which may help explain why less intelligent people consistently believe they can get away with crime.

Do you know WHY criminals tend to be people with lower IQ's? I'll tell you; because intelligent people do a risk vs. reward judgement as to whether they will steal. The fact that dumb people have a poor ability to weigh risk and reward properly doesn't mean most people can't. Get rid of prisons and the risk side of the equation would be dramatically reduced, and thus the number of intelligent people willing to steal will skyrocket.

 

This differs from narcotics as they provide their own disincentives already. Based on the very nature of these dangerous drugs as no one rational would ever use them. Thus laws against them are futile. You can't dissuade the irrational with reason.

 

 

 

Now, the most controversial point is by far b). Please understand that I'm not a crime apologist — I'm simply trying to discuss whether the huge drain on resources that a prison system entails has any effect on crime rates. You might argue that there is always an alternative to stealing. Even if we accept that, that's not the point. Rather, the point is whether people who steal are able to see that alternative. Owing to the intelligence argument, we know that people with lower IQ or developmental disabilities have more trouble negotiating difficult situations. That should be enough to give you an idea of why prisons don't serve to deter the majority of criminals* — they simply don't think they'll end up there!

 

Again with the intelligence argument. Get rid of the prisons (without replacing them with some other punishment mechanism) and you'd have to be an idiot not to steal. You'd have a lot to gain; with very little risk. BTW: Most people who steal do not do so out of need. They steal because stealing is beneficial if you're not punished.

 

 

 

*remember, you are only a criminal if you are caught and convicted. An argument could be made that very few really intelligent criminals are caught. Considering that intelligence is mostly inherited, how fair is that?

 

Very unfair. Nature really screwed morons over. Oh well. That's life.

 

 

 

So, you are saying that statist oppression is a necessary evil to defend against... foreign statist oppresion. This is the line of thinking that almost plunged the world into nuclear war in the 60's and 80's, and the line of thinking that has enabled tyrannies to take hold since, well, forever. I can turn this argument around and suggest that unified resistance may encourage the enemy to use even more force to achieve its aims than it would otherwise, as exemplified by the US nuking Japan into submission, for instance.

It also saved a lot of countries from being conquered. You can turn it around and unified resistance can backfire in a fight you can't win. See the fate of Carthage for proof of that. If you can't put up a unified resistance however, you WILL be conquered, and the fate of the conquered is usually grim. Not to mention you will then be forced into a society with a government anyway; only now you truly have no say in what kind of government you get.

 

 

 

The truth is you can resist a foreign oppressor exactly the same way you resist a native one: as passively or actively as circumstances allow.

Without a government the circumstances will be: You're screwed against a foreign power and at their mercy.