Noam Chomsky

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Michael, Apr 18, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    First, I have not said that complexity is a glory. The point was a quite different one, that there is, in comparison with past society, even less complexity in the actual world.

    The point is important, because the claimed increase of complexity was used as an argument to justify the regulations. If there is no such increase of complexity, the argument is false. If complexity is good or bad is, in this case, completely irrelevant.

    But, yes, there are some aspects of complexity which are, indeed, reasonably considered as part of civilization. Rules of politeness, for example.

    Of course, states apply their legislation also to things which happen in the net, and have also started to write legislation to control the net. But, no, it is not yet heavily regulated. Because what is forbidden in one state is usually allowed in at least one other state, so essentially the legislation tried by many states has almost no effect. Which is quite different from what happens in real life if some lobby has succeeded to write yet another regulation to make life harder for the competitors.

    The technical protocols have been written by programmers, not by politicians, at a time when politicians have not even heard about the internet.

    All what I have "bemoaned" is the decline of education and politeness. And if you claim that science was instrumental or even crucial for the decline of education and politeness, I disagree.

    There are, of course, situations close to a civil war, where police is not the strongest force. In this case, the state is named "failed state". The result of such situations are, of course, very different from libertarian ideals, because a civil war is simply a fight between different gangs who want to have the power.

    Oh, the argument ad Hitlerum with a new person, you have switched to Koch. Seems, you really like such arguments.

    By the way, Koch is so famous in the anti-libertarian propaganda because he is a rare exception. Usually the very rich support etatist parties - republicans as well as democrats.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    actualy the rich are more likely to be libertarian than republicans. the rich are either decent people who care about everyone and are liberals. or elitists hacks who care only for them selves and are libertarians. the poor tend to be republican and conservative
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    No. If this would be correct, the libertarians would be one of the two big parties, and republicans nothing. Simply because the rich own the mass media, and against libertarian mass media etatist republicans would have zero chance.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There is greater complexity in the political, economic, medical, scientific, and industrial world. There are entirely new features of human culture, such as powered and high speed transportation. Hence the need for new regulations.
    The US government is not made up of politicians, neither do politicians write and enforce regulations and technical protocols. On the other hand, Al Gore had heard about the nascent internet, grasped its potential, and was instrumental in bringing out of the US Defense and Intelligence Departments and establishing it in its current publicly available, protocol and regulation bound form.
    Your notion of education and politeness varies considerably from that of educated and kind and reasonable people. Like I said - you can find your idea of educated and polite society in many places today: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. And the culture represented by many of the US political figures who have espoused your ideology - such as Lester Maddox - is known for what you describe as education and politeness and great social complexity.
    No, they aren't (there are two of them). They aren't famous for actual libertarian leanings, and they aren't exceptional in their ideology among their peers. They are famous for the amount of money they use to corrupt and influence US politics, in their personal interest.
    If the idea of a major Libertarian Party made any sense, it would be the Democrats who lost their membership - the Republican Party in the US is solidly authoritarian in its rank and file.
     
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    not really. if you actually took the time to think about instead of having a knee jerk ideological response you see why. rich people tend to be better educated. better educated people tend to be socially liberal. hence rich people would tend to skew libertarian than conservative. not that there is any real difference between to 2 economicly. they both function as a free market cult with out actually really understanding it.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually most libertarians are poorer than liberals and less educated. The folks who fund the libertarian ideology are however very wealthy.

    "Libertarians are much more likely to be male (59%) and young (33% are under age 30) than are any of the other groups; they are also more numerous in western states. Liberals are far better educated than other groups (48% college graduates, compared with an overall average of 27%). By contrast, populists are less educated, with just 16% holding college degrees, and nearly half of them live in the south. They are less affluent as well: only 13% live in households with incomes of $75,000 or higher – 8 percentage points lower than the national average." http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/04/10/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    well yes but i was comparing libertarians and conservatives not libertarians and liberals. while your facts are correct i fail to see your point as it has nothing to do with the argument i actually made.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Your source appears to be counting only rightwing libertarians, and accepting reactions to abstract query wordings as a proxy for actual ideology. Both those factors bias the supposed data unrecoverably.

    In addition, their survey questions are badly muddled. There are libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, and liberal reasons for thinking that "government is too involved in promoting morality", for example, - or that it isn't. Likewise with the others. Those surveyors seem to have accepted a mass media framing of issues and vocabulary that is largely a consequence of deliberate manipulation by propagandists.

    This, for example, is hopelessly confused:
    For starters, this completely overlooks the key and fundamental ideological difference between personal and corporate regulation in the economic sphere, or individual and community regulation in the social sphere.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You need to tell that to Pew Research, that you know how to do their business better than they, but don't be surprised if they laugh you out of the building and dismiss you as an idiot.

    P.S. I guess you missed the data on libertarians who identify as liberals. But the you do have trouble understanding text.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So do you think the questions they said they asked have "conservative" and "liberal" answers, as they claimed?

    Do you agree with Pew, for example, that there are no left libertarians - people who refuse to consider corporations to be people and regard regulating their power over people as often an increase in liberty rather than a decrease? That might reverse Pew's label on two of the three questions they asked in the "economic sphere". And the third was a coin toss: "Government regulation needed to protect public interest" - I kid you not, they got 41% "No" on that, which they then interpreted as either conservative or liberal (I'm not sure which), rather than "confused by the wording", "answering at random", or possibly "reactionary when polled".

    Do you agree with Pew that someone who answers "yes" to the following "question"(sic):
    has given a liberal answer? Or a conservative one? That's a third of their data on social issues, Joe.

    I read that entire thing. It's a hopeless mess. Their "four categories" make no sense with respect to their questions, and even added together do not reliably describe even the 58% of respondents they claim to have labeled.

    You'd think when they realized they had a slush pile of 42% of their total response, more than twice as big as any of the four categories they had identified a priori on some foghatted basis, they would have simply discarded the botch - did they even formulate a null hypothesis? Instead, they treated it as a fifth category - no kidding: they called it "ambivalent", and proceeded to "analyze" the political nature of the US based on describing these people as having no consistent ideology and thus resembling each other. I'm in it - so I have no consistent ideology, and neither does any other center-left libertarian. But the people who blow with Fox's wind (heavy security and big army one day, small government leaving everyone alone the next; States's Rights on Tuesdays, Federal ban on gay marriage on Thursdays) but get the answers to those six questions 3/-3 have ideological consistency. They are "conservatives".

    There's a science fiction movie wandering around on cable called "Divergence", based on a similar categorization - it makes more sense. It is more recent - may even be a more carefully thought out inspiration from it.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    There is no much need for new regulation, because most of the complexity of economy and industry is handled by contracts. Science needs no regulation at all.

    I don't think regulation is an appropriate word here. Essentially the internet is a protocol. And with this protocol the internet works, independent of whatever regulations various states have been written to forbid whatever they don't like.

    A nice way to name me unreasonable and uneducated, but, ok, if you think that this name-calling behaviour is "educated" or "reasonable", then there is, indeed, a difference between my notion of education and politeness and your.

    And yet another ad Hitlerum.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The contracts need regulation. So do the industries involved.
    I do. These are not voluntary or optional matters, and they are established by government agencies - as was most of the internet, btw.
    It isn't namecalling. Educated people know what namecalling is, and reasonable people don't hide behind such responses rather than dealing with the arguments made.
    Yet another avoidance of the issue at hand - and an example of namecalling, btw, which is something you (unlike me) actually do quite often.

    Do you plan to address the real world manifestations of your ideologies and preferences, or remain in the realm of fantasy and abstraction indefinitely?
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    They have - but they don't need them. What one reasonable needs is an arbiter, but about the arbiter one can find agreement at the time of signing the contract. And industries do not need regulations - they develop quite successfully even without them.
    Sorry, but this is simply nonsense. The internet has used, of course, existing communications for telefon, which are in some states government-owned, and one part of the net - the domain names - is centrally managed. But this is, in fact, a quite unnecessary part.
    There was no argument beyond the name-calling.
    No. I have given the standard name to your argument, not your person. "Ad Hitlerum" is the standard name for an argument that some IYO negative person (the "Hitler") uses the same argument I use - as if this would be a valid counterargument against this argument. "by many of the US political figures who have espoused your ideology - such as Lester Maddox" is a clear and obvious example of this, because there is no doubt that you value this Lester Maddox very negative.
    I certainly do not plan to answer your ad Hitlerum arguments. If some negative person accepts some of my arguments, fine, the world would be probably even worse if he doesn't - the only thing which could be problematic with this is that being less stupid (following my arguments) makes them more powerful, thus, also more dangerous.

    I plan to discuss arguments. This is what is interesting. Examples of what happens in reality in a case where certain proposals have been implemented is, of course, a powerful argument. But not if one mixes this up with moral considerations. Hitler has build "Autobahn"s in Germany. This has made the German Reich more powerful, because these Autobahns could be used for transport of military. Does it follow that building Autobahns is negative, given that it has given Hitler more power?

    In this sense, I have no problem to discuss certain aspects of, say, Saudi Arabia. But, first, on the base of some actual policies which are in agreement with my proposals (whatever this would be - I'm not aware of any) and certainly not based on that the poor women or immigrants are treated there in very bad ways.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    On (1) The main need of government, not supplied by anarchy, is punishment as some determent to crimes, especially against others not as strong. Would you prefer to live in a group where the stronger can do to you anything they like, such as rape your pretty wife or harvest the crops in your garden? Or do you, like me, prefer Lock's "social contract"?

    Main problem with it as sometimes implemented is some states restrict your ability to "opt out" - I. e. have boarders that are more to prevent their citizens from leaving than to restrict immigration.

    On (2) "Voluntary LEGAL agreement" implies some means (by government or collective action of some from) to enforce compliance. Not sure you intend that governments have that force in (1) with its phrase "meant to play a part" as in general you are opposed to governments being able to force actions to be taken.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    There are two parts of this problem: First, enforcement of contracts. Here, reputational systems are even better than enforcement by the state, as long as it works - and this was, traditionally, restricted to small communities where one is able to know the reputation of everybody - with at most one intermediate trusted person who trusts the other. But this restriction of classical reputational systems no longer exists, modern information technology allows to solve this problem.

    The other is acceptance of basic rules of behaviour. But this can be implicit part of many or all contracts too.

    A reputational system works out of the private interest of all participants - nobody wants to be cheated by people who do not fulfill their contracts, so, nobody will sign contracts with people known for breaking contracts, except on such conditions where one is always paid in advance so that cheating is simply impossible. And, of course, in a society where this is not enforced by a state, the acceptance of general civilized rules of behaviour will be, in some form or another, a prerequisite for signing contracts too.
     
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    There are two parts of this problem: First, enforcement of contracts. Here, reputational systems are even better than enforcement by the state, as long as it works - and this was, traditionally, restricted to small communities where one is able to know the reputation of everybody - with at most one intermediate trusted person who trusts the other. But this restriction of classical reputational systems no longer exists, modern information technology allows to solve this problem.

    The other is acceptance of basic rules of behaviour. But this can be implicit part of many or all contracts too.

    A reputational system works out of the private interest of all participants - nobody wants to be cheated by people who do not fulfill their contracts, so, nobody will sign contracts with people known for breaking contracts, except on such conditions where one is always paid in advance so that cheating is simply impossible. And, of course, in a society where this is not enforced by a state, the acceptance of general civilized rules of behaviour will be, in some form or another, a prerequisite for signing contracts too.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You should delete one of the duplicate posts. Also your reply ignores the subject of my posts, which was not related to contracts, but abuse by the strong of the weak.
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    I have tried, but it was not possible. But my point is that in a society where contracts may be enforced by a reputational system, this problem may be solved too. To cooperate with people who do not accept basic rules of behaviour would be too risky, so that many people would require such an acceptance of basic rules. But people are strong only based on their cooperation with other people - one without any such cooperation as a background is weak. Thus, the strong will be forced to accept rules of appropriate behaviour simply to become strong, to obtain cooperation of others.

    In particular, the replacement for police in an anarcho-capitalist society would be security firms. They will be connected with their customers by contracts. But, of course, it would be dangerous to support customers which behave inappropriate. So, the support of the firm will depend on appropriate behaviour toward other people, and the meaning of this will be fixed in the contract. No firm would agree to a contract which forces it to support somebody against a third party which has simply defended itself in an appropriate symmetrical way against an attack by the customer. At least this would be a very bad idea, and immediately lead the firm into a small war, already with its first customer. Wars are expensive, thus, the firm will probably fail.

    Thus, the successful big security firms will support only people who behave appropriately, as fixed in their contracts. And without such support one will be weak.

    Note also that it is natural for such security firms to give better conditions to those who accept stronger restrictions for their own behaviour. Thus, for people who behave in a very civilized way, security will be quite cheap.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Not very realistic. Bank robbers rarely are more than a three man team. "Second story thieves" work alone. In general, the reverse is true - i.e. the most violent ones are not well socialized. The Mexican drug lord who recently escaped, has killed several thousand people. He gets lots of cooperation, via terror; as evidenced by multi-year construction of a mile long tunnel 30 yards below the surface with lights, ventilation shafts and air conditioning! - Not a weak guy at all. The dirt removed filled 200 large dump trucks. - Many dozen knew it and none did anything to stop the tunnel's construction.
    Also not relaistic. You may need to pay a little more (now because of governments making it a crime with huge penalty if caught) but even now, "contract killers" are for hire. With your system, getting someone killed you don't like would be cheap, it you don't want to do the job yourself.
    Not true. Bad people may just pay more, especially to firms that supply rock solid alibies for crimes the bad guys commit. Without punishment crime, including violent crime, rates would soar. True that without government vigilante groups would form a they did in the early days of the "wild west" but quite often they are vindictively used.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They do not.
    That's not the form of my argument. I never said your arguments were the same as anyone else's.
    I did no namecalling. You did.
    Why yes, it is. Especially when accompanied by reason and mechanism, as they have been in my posts. Worth answering?
    I have made none. I am arguing in the opposite direction: not that the deeds of Lester Maddox were bad because he and his ideology did them, but that he and his ideology were bad because they did those things; not that the consequences of your ideology are bad because you share the ideology with a bad person, but that the people who share your ideology are bad because the consequences of the ideology they share with you have been bad.

    Your ideology has had bad effects, seriously harmed people, in others' hands. Yours will continue the pattern.
     

Share This Page