Friday, May 29, 2015

14 Hard Questions for Statists.

Since statists, here defined as those who believe a State (monopoly of violence or a government) have posed a list of 14 questions to libertarians, I feel it prudent to return the favor.  Here is a list of 14 tough questions for anyone who believes governments are legit.

14.  If governments are legit, why do they have to force people to comply with their laws?

13.  How can someone you have never met accurately "represent" you?

12.  If governments rule only through the consent of the governed, how do you explain such low approval ratings?

11.  If people have no right to use force against each other, how did they delegate this power to politicians?

10.  If it is protection from people who want to do us harm that we seek,  why are governments defended? as it is governments who go to war, attempt genocide, develop nuclear weapons, and consider innocent deaths an acceptable circumstance to war, lock people up who haven't harmed anyone, etc?

9.  If we need protection from monopolies forming in our economy, as monopolists get out of control and abuse their power, why should we want a monopoly on violence?

8.  If theft, killing, kidnappings, extortion, and so on are completely immoral, why should it be legal for anyone to do it?

7.  If government economic programs are really wanted by people, why does it have to be a matter of law? Why don't politicians take their ideas to the market to test whether or not people are willing to buy what they are selling?

6.  Isn't the thought of the government as a necessary evil the same as saying evil is necessary?  And if evil is necessary, are we not saying the absence of evil would be a bad thing?

5.  If governments are formed to protect rights, does it not follow that rules precede governments, as well as rights, and we can have both rules and rights without governments?

4.  When statists discuss the possibility of a legit war, it is in the context of a government defending people from another government; does this not mean it is still the existence of governments that is responsible for starting wars?

5.  The United States Government is made up of a few hundred people; where do they get the information they need to effectively control hundreds of millions of people? 

4.  Every time you walk by a store and refuse to go in, or you go in and refuse to buy an item, an economic decision has been made.  How can such a small group of people account for these kinds of decisions made by hundreds of millions of people?

3.  An anarchist would not stop anyone from giving money or following who they wish; why do statists insist anyone who refuses to give money to the people they wish to follow should be thrown in jail?

2.  If all politicians are human beings, and no human being has the right to use force against another, why does calling it law change the morality of what is being done?

1.  If murder and theft and the like are truly immoral, why should we want a society based on such actions?

Questions or comments, feel free to discuss!

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Common Sense

Common Sense is a phrase that gets thrown around daily, usually by people who are annoyed with other people.  It is something that everyone is expected to have in order to make rational judgments about every day situations.  For example, if it is cold outside, it only takes a shred of common sense to know you will need a coat to keep warm.  If you are thirsty, the idea of getting a drink quickly comes to mind.  But what exactly is common sense?

According to dictionary.com, common sense is defined as:

 Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.

For our purposes, we will define common sense as "judgment based on every day experiences."

The problem here is not hard to spot... in fact, anyone with common sense could do it.  Every day experiences differ from person to person, although we do share the same struggle living in a world based on scarcity, weather, and so on.  So what differences do people have which would actually cause problems?  Here a few that I can think of.

1.  Some people are religious, some are not.
2.  Some people are disciplined differently than others as children.
3.  Value ratings often change from person to person.

Religion.  Suppose two people were considering walking into a Casino to gamble.  A religious person may say "no, duh, God hates gambling so I'm not going in there."  whereas a non-religious, or atheist, may say something like "what harm can come from gambling, as long as you control yourself."  

Both people in this scenario are applying what they view as common sense and each has arrived at a different conclusion.

How about people who were disciplined differently as children?  As parents they may say something like "if your child gets out of control, threaten or issue a spanken, that'll straighten them right out."  However, someone who was not spanked may say something like "I wonder why _____ is acting up.  If I spank, it will increase the overall amount of aggression _____ is used to and may actually cause more aggression."  Again, both people applying common sense.

Value Ratings:  This is the most essential, fundamental difference in humanity.  Without differences in how things are valued, there would be no economy and no civilization.  If I am extremely thirsty, I may pay $5.00 for a bottle of water at a movie theater.  That may be common sense to me at the time, even if I do feel a bit ripped off.  However, the owner of the movie theater may say "Oh my god, these people are paying through the nose for this stuff!"

So what does all this say about common sense?  First, common sense, as defined above, does not exist.  It is just another way of saying bias.  Before it was discovered that the Earth was round, religion, along with a bit of common sense, determined it was flat.  For the religious text said the earth is flat and that is the way our interactions with the world appear at first, especially when there are not cars, planes, trains, satellites, etc.  

When I first became a parent, I asked a few people for advice...  What I basically heard was "use common sense."  If you guessed that I asked a family member, you are correct!  All this meant was "apply our family values/biases to your parenting."  I know this because I have broken with some of those biases and have been ridiculed for it.  

I am doing my best to parent peacefully because I believe it is scientifically and morally correct.  Scientifically, aggressive parenting pushes the kid into fight or flight and interferes with the ability to reason, and in the end creates robots out of human flesh... but peaceful parenting allows freedom for kids to be themselves, does NOT hamper the ability to reason and does not teach aggression.  But this information did not come to me from "common sense", it came from various people spreading the peaceful parenting message and the science behind it.  In other words, those with specialized knowledge.

How often to we find that specialized knowledge trumps biases?  The Earth is round, not flat.  The God of War did not start that war, your leaders, or their's, did.  When two people make an exchange in goods and services, it is because each values that which they gain more than that which they give up, not because one is necessarily a moron and the other brilliant.  Governments can commit crimes too (Nuremberg).  Cutting a sick person so they can bleed out their infection is dangerous!  Racism, well, do we need to go there?  The idea that a person is good or bad based on their skin color is common sense to a small percentage of people... and the depth of their cognitive dissonance is evidence in how strong these biases are.

So what do we do about biases?  We introduce philosophy.  We challenge our biases.  Some will take longer than others.  Do I really need a coat to be warm is a question that should take about 5 seconds in the right conditions.  Is spanking good or bad for kids?  That is one that should be visited by everyone, regardless of what your bias makes you lean towards.  We go to people with specialized knowledge and find out, we acquire our own knowledge and study the methods of gaining knowledge, called epistemology....  To me, this is what education is, particularly in a world where information is instantaneously delivered to our screens.  Educate ourselves in logic, and so on...  

Who in their right mind hires someone for a job and says "eh, just use common sense."  NOBODY.  I work at a Casino since I started, have gained quite a bit of knowledge in Table Games.  Someone without any knowledge may see two hands:  2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for one and 6, J, Q, K A as the other.  Someone who does not understand hand rankings, applying common sense, may guess that the second hand wins because of the Ace... not seeing the pattern of the straight in the first hand.  

My first job was as a bus-boy a friend got me at his family's restaurant.  That is a pretty simple job.  People come in and eat, and when they leave, you clean and reset the table.  Still nobody said to just go out there and apply common sense.  Even then the dishes had to be set a certain way for the washing machine to work properly, my customer relations skills had to be tested, etc.

If we define common sense as an ability to learn and use reason to be a functional member of society, parent, etc. then all we are doing is re-defining the term to mean someone who knows their limitations and acquires necessary knowledge to be effective at whatever task they are to perform, which is a way of saying philosophy. 

Granted, we may not look at what experts are saying about every detail of everything we do, but in that case, we have to be ready to be wrong on some points.  I am at a loss on how to sew a pair of boxers.  I did it once in high school and the end product came out as something, idk what it was...  I probably used a little too much common sense and failed to gain enough specialized knowledge though.  See the issue I am bringing up here?