Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[BrianBlackwell]

Brian, you don't even respect those things or meaningfully value those principles (at least not enough to change your behavior), how do you expect the whole of society to do so?
And no it does not count if you arbitrarily respect them only for SOME individuals but not others. Anybody can behave well with their arbitrary in-groups.

I understand why you say this, but you must realize that this is somewhat... tangential... to the discussion. I am describing a way of dealing with humanity, and within that context, all I have said stands. To define the whole of humanity as an "arbitrary in-group" is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not suggesting that it's completely ridiculous to include chickens into this discussion, as I see your point, but I am saying that in a discussion about how humans construct a human society, I don't think it's unreasonable to limit the context to humans -- especially since proposing anarchy to the masses is hard enough without trying to push veganism on them at the same time. Surely, if we can't get people to understand that they shouldn't participate in aggression against their fellow man (via government, in this case), the chickens don't stand a chance.

This could easily be turned around to say that if a "moral" vegan is not an anarchist, he is equally hypocritical, as he supports and participates in violence against others via his advocacy of government. How much time to do you spend making this point when discussing veganism?

[brimstoneSalad]

I understand why you say this, but you must realize that this is somewhat... tangential... to the discussion. I am describing a way of dealing with humanity, and within that context, all I have said stands. To define the whole of humanity as an "arbitrary in-group" is a bit of a stretch.

You think all psychopaths fit in that in-group, expecting them to respect the interests of others and society? You think people of low IQ do, who barely even comprehend cause and effect and can think about five minutes into the future? How about people of radically different culture and ideology like Islamists?

You think the non-aggression principle only applies to humans because they can reciprocate? They can't, not all of them.
Most of those groups not only won't but can't; they're either not competent to do so or not free thinking enough to break from their brainwashing. They're trapped in one way or another, be it hardware or software limitations. Likewise, it's not true that all non-humans can't reciprocate.

You can't deal with humanity as a monolith. People are not similar enough in capacity, and they definitely aren't similar enough in culture or upbringing to hold the same values.

"Humanity" is arbitrary as an in-group, because by setting it as such you include vast swaths of people with no rational basis, and if you're just including them because they're sentient or have some capacity to be trained or reprogrammed, you have to include most larger animals too.

I'm not suggesting that it's completely ridiculous to include chickens into this discussion, as I see your point, but I am saying that in a discussion about how humans construct a human society, I don't think it's unreasonable to limit the context to humans

You could say the same thing about limiting the context to Whites in a discussion on how White people construct a White society. You've arbitrarily placed your conclusion in your premise. It's like Christians calling the universe "creation" and then saying it needs a creator.

If you want to limit society ONLY to those who follow the "non aggression principle", where you also conveniently define "non aggression" to include only the people in that society, you're employing circular reasoning.
You could just as easily draw that in-group line around only yourself, and congratulate yourself on what a great person you are for following the non aggression principle while killing everybody around you who is in the out group and so who don't count.

-- especially since proposing anarchy to the masses is hard enough without trying to push veganism on them at the same time.

Proposing Anarchy to the masses doesn't become harder by advocating veganism, it becomes ever so slightly easier; from impossible to extremely improbable. Veganism (not carnism) is the rational result of the value of non-aggression applied without in-groups/out-groups, and the only way you will ever break down the divides in humanity is to dissolve group think and the idea of placing moral value only on arbitrary in-groups and excluding all others. If people don't go vegan first, they will be incapable of breaking from that group-thinking because they will have a cognitive bias that prevents it.

If the whole world ever goes vegan, then we can start looking at anarchy as something that's legitimately possible rather than a fairy tale.

This could easily be turned around to say that if a "moral" vegan is not an anarchist, he is equally hypocritical, as he supports and participates in violence against others via his advocacy of government. How much time to do you spend making this point when discussing veganism?

There are bad and irrational people out there, people who don't follow the non-aggression principle, or who do but only for arbitrary in-groups and give no moral value to those outside (e.g. most people). For as long as that is true, we need government to stop these people from harming others and inciting tribal warfare between all of the groups.

There's no point in discussing anarchy until people can break down all of these arbitrary in-groups and respect others' interests regardless of group membership -- regardless of whatever crazy rationalization they come up with (rationalizations such as you come up with to arbitrarily disrespect the autonomy of other species).
If the world goes vegan, then we can start having serious discussions about the need for government because the main reason we need government will be gone. As long as people are still violating the NAP against other species, there's nothing stopping them from out-grouping other humans too because it's all arbitrary.

[BrianBlackwell]

As long as people are still violating the NAP against other species, there's nothing stopping them from out-grouping other humans too because it's all arbitrary.

This is a perfectly valid point, but what's the use in railing against the immutable reality of man's subjectivity? All of this -- the NAP included -- is simply a subjective perspective adopted by the individual. Now, whereas you would assert an objective moral standard, I would say that conscience provides universal consensus among those whose consciousness is raised to a high enough level to accurately perceive it (potentially excluding psychopaths, etc.). The net effect mirrors "objectivity" for most intents and purposes, but it is not proved to exist outside of the individual. I offer no explanations of the nature of conscience, only that experience suggests that there is a large degree of commonality on this point. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of people believe that they do not have the right (or inclination) to initiate violent aggression against others (at least not personally). We can see this with our own eyes, everywhere we go, all day, every day.

Who falls into the group of "others" is subject to some debate, however, as you have pointed out. I am drawing an arbitrary line around humanity on the basis of species; you are drawing it on the basis of sentience. Just because you broaden the scope doesn't make it non-arbitrary. You have no problem killing other living things to eat, or to make a garden in your yard, or to build a house or boat, etc. You have no problem committing aggression against inanimate objects either. Keeping in mind that we don't truly understand the fundamental nature of reality, to differentiate between sentience and non-sentience is an arbitrary distinction (not capricious, per se, but arbitrary in the sense that it is subjectively-derived). Who knows... maybe in the mind of God, rocks are just as important as gophers or people, or maybe everything is just energy, exactly the same on the most basic level. We're humans, and humans draw lines on the basis of their own subjective thought process, and nothing more.

The NAP was being offered as a means by which to discuss the topic of voluntarism in a more persuasive way; since most people could see the logic in it, particularly as it applies to humans. I am not suggesting that an anarchist world would adhere to it with 100% compliance. Anarchy is merely man's natural state; whatever happens after that is anyone's guess. Whites may band together if they so choose, as may any other group, and if they want to go to war, have at it. The point is that a world without government and the fallacious belief in authority would likely be vastly less dangerous, because individuals would not feel beholden to an organization that could send them a piece of paper in the mail commanding that they fly halfway around the world to kill strangers. If they understood self-ownership, they would have to truly believe in the cause, and they couldn't hide behind the false notion that they are acting under authority, as an agent of something larger than themselves. Many soldiers under government rule didn't even choose their enemy, no less understand the reasons why they're killing them. It's about the thought process; I'm suggesting a perspective, not a system.

History proves that most human-on-human theft and murder is committed by governments, by a ridiculously wide margin. This results from the fact that, in all cases, government claims rights that individuals don't have, which is impossible. Adherence to this false belief turns good people into agents of evil. I am merely seeking to dispel a fallacy, and anything I say subsequent to that (about how anarchy would work, etc.) is just armchair speculation. The fact that a person cannot delegate a right they do not have is not subject for debate, but the arbitrary lines we draw relative to the NAP most certainly are.

[NonZeroSum]

government claims rights that individuals don't have, which is impossible.

No one is treating systems of government as an entity with rights comparable to a humans, the idea that they should be the same is just an absurd maxim that you're asserting without any foundational reasoning. Kantian deontoligists concerned with rights will that if someone was caught stealing from them they would want them to be apprehended, so they accept the same fate for themselves in order that it can be universally legislated, the same way that we should legislate to try to ward off civilization ending climate change or any other number of tasks which require universal participation.

You can still have a critique of how governments overplay the power given to them by people:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3353

And ways you think would be productive to moving towards accountability and transparency, representation to spokes delegation etc. But arbitrary rights and no imperative to point out the greater harm between a genocidal race war and someone mining rocks isn't foundational to anything.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is a perfectly valid point, but what's the use in railing against the immutable reality of man's subjectivity? All of this -- the NAP included -- is simply a subjective perspective adopted by the individual.

It's a perspective and value YOU claimed to hold. Were you lying about all of that now that I've demonstrated your inconsistency? Are you going to simply abandon all of your values instead of admitting veganism may fit with them a lot better than carnism?

You have been arguing for Anarchism because YOU prefer it, you have been arguing for the NAP because YOU prefer it, and YOU think it would be a better system for the world and everybody in it. You're the one who brought this stuff up. All I did was demonstrate your inconsistency. Now it's up to you to step up and make some changes in your behavior if you actually hold the values you claim to have and genuinely think they're important.

Retreating into this "everything is subjective" garbage is a dishonest copout, because I was only ever talking about the values you advocated and claimed to hold.
Simple as that.

If somebody claims to have values based on the bible, no matter how subjective they think faith is, if I make an argument based on the bible (something they claim to believe in and hold values based on) they damned well better respond to those arguments. If they're just going to throw up their hands and say everything is subjective the only thing they have demonstrated is that they actually have no values at all and nobody should take anything they say about their values seriously because they are not honest with themselves or anybody else.

[BrianBlackwell]

No one is treating systems of government as an entity with rights comparable to a humans, the idea that they should be the same is just an absurd maxim that you're asserting without any foundational reasoning.

The foundational reasoning is that one man cannot grant a right to another that he does not possess himself. Unless you can demonstrate your personal right to dominate another against his will, how can you grant this right to another? If two, ten, or a million people do not possess the right, the same holds, despite their agreement. This is why government and individual humans are comparable (never mind the fact that the government is made up of individual humans). And really, man cannot grant rights at all, whether he has them or not. "Rights" (if you accept the notion at all) are based on self-evident truths, like man's inherent self-ownership. It is not granted by anyone, it's just the nature of reality. His "right" to self-ownership simply means that it is immoral (or more importantly, fallacious) for anyone to deny this reality.

To say that one man (or group of men) has the "right" to rule over another, is to say that he owns him; as the right of property is the right to dictate how a thing is to be used. To say I must pay a portion of my salary to these people, or that these people can dictate what substances I can put into my body, etc., it so say that they own me, that I am their property. It is to condone slavery in the most literal form.

Kantian deontoligists concerned with rights will that if someone was caught stealing from them they would want them to be apprehended, so they accept the same fate for themselves in order that it can be universally legislated, the same way that we should legislate to try to ward off civilization ending climate change or any other number of tasks which require universal participation.

Well, maybe they "accept the same fate for themselves" but I do not. So now what? Are you saying that they -- or you -- can decide for me that I must accept this fate? On what basis do you assert your right to do this? I have not given my consent to be subject to this arrangement; I am merely being coerced by threat of violence. If people choose not to willingly participate in tasks which require universal participation, then so be it. That's the world, and your desire for it to be different than it is actually is, your inclination to stand in denial of reality, does not justify violent coercion. It's your job to convince them, and you have every right to speak in an effort to do so, but by what reasoning to do claim the right to force them against their will, denying their inherent freedom to make their own choices?

I do not have a critique as to how governments overplay the power given to them by people, I deny their power entirely, and the right of the people to grant it at all. People are free to live under the illusion of governmental power as individuals, if they so choose, but they have no right to impose it universally upon the unwilling.

[BrianBlackwell]

It's a perspective and value YOU claimed to hold.

No, I claimed no such thing; not with the application you're suggesting. Your logic is sound, but it's based upon a false premise. I claimed to hold to the value of the NAP as applied to human-on-human interaction. If you want to say that this is not the NAP proper, that's fine. Call it something else. We'll call it the NAPATH: the Non-Aggression Principle as Applied To Humans. Now are we OK? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking if that resolves the issue.

Also, I'm not simply saying that anarchy would be better, or that I like it, I'm saying that it is the reality of human existence, though we may delude ourselves into believing otherwise. The power of government is an illusion -- they simply cannot rule us. No man may rule another; man has inherent freedom. He has the freedom to choose bondage, if he will, but this does not mean that his ruler has a right to control him, nor that he actually does control him. I'm calling for a recognition of an irrefutable truth, not a new "system" according to my preference. I'm also not asking for people to abandon their illusion (though I am imploring them to consider the matter in earnest), but rather to desist from imposing their illusion upon unwilling others via violent force by proxy, even if they think they're right. I, in turn, impose nothing, and respect their freedom to abide by the illusion. The two positions are not equal.

[brimstoneSalad]

I claimed to hold to the value of the NAP as applied to human-on-human interaction. If you want to say that this is not the NAP proper, that's fine. Call it something else. We'll call it the NAPATH: the Non-Aggression Principle as Applied To Humans. Now are we OK?

It's not the NAP, period. You might as well subscribe to NAPATW: the Non-Aggression Principle as Applied To Whites. Or the NAPATMIF (my immediate family). It's arbitrary, and it defeats the purpose of the NAP because EVERYBODY could have their own arbitrary version, all the way down to NAPATM (just myself). By drawing arbitrary lines and in/outgroups you completely defeat the purpose of and all arguments for the NAP.

The power of government is an illusion -- they simply cannot rule us.

It does not claim to be absolute, it's just a stabilizing pressure. It only needs to work sometimes (often enough) to apply enough force, along with human empathy and other forces acting together, to maintain social order by removing the anti-social.

There is a tipping point of dysfunction (caused in a large part by people, like you, who reject the NAP) at which society and peace breaks down, and government helps avoid that by applying the slight pressure toward order. It can still break down, it's just more stable with stabilizing forces.
If you want to get at the root of the problem and get people to respect the NAP, you'll have to think about doing it yourself first to show it's possible instead of making arbitrary changes to limit its application to whites, or your immediate family, or just your own self.

[teo123]

You seem to ignore the fact that there would be much fewer meat-eaters in an anarchy. Meat would be more expensive and not many people would be able to afford it. See the video "How Much Does Meat Actually Cost" by MinuteEarth.

[BrianBlackwell]

By drawing arbitrary lines and in/outgroups you completely defeat the purpose of and all arguments for the NAP.

This is simply not true. So... applying the NAP to all humans is exactly the same as not applying the NAP at all, because it has been made utterly defunct (all its purposes and arguments rendered void) by the fact that it doesn't include animals? Applying the NAP to any group, no matter how small and arbitrary, always serves the purpose of improvement. It is never rendered purposeless, and certainly not when applied to 7.5 billion of the living beings on this planet. I know veganism is important to you, but please be careful to maintain the integrity of your thought -- we can't afford for smart people concerned with morality to descend into madness.

It does not claim to be absolute, it's just a stabilizing pressure. It only needs to work sometimes (often enough) to apply enough force, along with human empathy and other forces acting together, to maintain social order by removing the anti-social.

There is a tipping point of dysfunction (caused in a large part by people, like you, who reject the NAP) at which society and peace breaks down, and government helps avoid that by applying the slight pressure toward order. It can still break down, it's just more stable with stabilizing forces.

Ok, now I'm worried. This description of government is beyond creepy to me. We are talking about an institution that literally enslaves the whole of humanity via violent coercion, and is responsible for mass theft and murder on a scale that renders all other crime nigh unto negligible. I've spent a lot of time discussing morality relative to veganism with you, I hope you will indulge me by giving this topic some serious thought. I believe that your own personal morality -- which you clearly hold very dear -- is being seriously violated (torn asunder to a staggering degree, in fact) by this indoctrinated view of government. We've all been made subject to this incessant brainwashing, so we all must carefully challenge our assumptions.

The simple act of voting completely violates the NAP. When you push that button, what are you saying? You are saying "I condone this person wielding power over myself and (more importantly) my 300 million neighbors. I know that they will demand a very large percentage of their wages, thus claiming ownership over the fruit of their labor (slavery), and that they will enforce this demand by the use of overt violence; beginning with threats and an exacerbation of the theft, and ending with kidnapping or death, should it come to that."

What's more, you are making your choice based upon your own values, with no respect for the values of others. You are not hoping that the person you vote for will force you to do things against your own values (that's why you choose someone who you believe shares your own values), but instead will violently force others , who do not share your values, to serve your aims whether they want to or not. If you are against guns, then you want the government (on your behalf, as your representative) to commit violence against people who would like to own guns, in order to make them do what you want. It's violence by proxy, and a complete disregard for freedom and equality.

To euphemize this dystopian horror show as "stabilizing pressure" is downright scary. What could be less stable than a group of maniacal, murderous thieves put into a position to dominate the entire world?! I know this is indoctrination talking, because it flies directly in the face of the passionate regard for moral standards that you display in your every word. Please don't let pride get the better of you here, we all trusted government at one time and bought into its dog-and-pony show (I voted for George W. the first time around! ). There's no shame in making a new, better decision that honestly reflects your own conscience.

You say that the meat-eater need not commit the act of violence himself to be in violation of the NAP, because he commits the violence by proxy when he purchases meat from the producer. With this in mind, please tell me how a voting person (or anyone who condones government) could claim to hold to the NAP, knowing full-well that violence is being done in his name; and that it is not only done with his consent, but it is the sole intention of the voter when he pushes that button.