constitution limiting government? Both the Articles of Confederation and our modern Constitution did and do this. Someone, please correct me if I'm babbling statist propaganda. Lol.
In this new Constitution, we have the concepts like the clock-work universe and checks/balances. All of which limit the size of the three branches of our government. This is all detailed in the Constitution. I mean, they did leave little wiggle room, certainly allowing our federal government to grow to the size with the branches have evolved. However, our government was designed to be inefficient and to prevent one group from holding complete authority . How is this not an example of a...
Wait a minute? I mean, I'm fairly ignorant of political theory, but doesn't our Constitution limit government. Anyone step in at anytime if I have this wrong.
One of the driving forces behind the Founders was to limit the size of a centralized government. We had the Articles of Confederation first which gave the states tons of power and rendered the central government weak. Then came along the Philadelphia Convention of 1984 (I think) and poof...we have the Constituion we know and love today
Great video and great argument, Jerico. Regardless of the fact that I have no particular stance in political philosophy at the moment, there is no denying that you made a wonder argument, one that will be very difficult to dispute.
But in a stateless society there is a real simple solution to the problem of those who don't live up to their agreements. Me and a couple buddies get together and pay the delinquent party a little visit and "reason" with him.
This is why in ALL failed or pre-constitutional societies we have the rule of strongmen and warlords. The Anarcho/Libertarian utopia is a nightmare of thugs and barbarism.
Governments and constitutions are created by the collective intentionality of the people involved. The state is an agreement, a social contract, between it's citizens. But no contract can cover every eventuality. That's why we have lawyers and finance fraud and corruption. The state also requires a monopoly on violence in order to enforce the contract.
What you are describing at the end is simply a nested heirarchy. It's an age old problem, if the cops are watching the criminals, who's watching the cops? "The state" is nothing more than the top level of that nested heirarchy. And the constitution with it's balance of powers does all that is possible to ensure that each branch of government is watching the others to keep them in check.
A very good video, I must say. You point out the critical flaw in an anarchist assertion and the flaws with it. I don't agree with the social contract theory, per say, but you still destroy his position, in my opinion. Most excellent, sir!
This has gotten out of control I think. Either you support our desire to secede or you support force on us for trying it. There's no social contract, because an agreement can't be a contract if I can't choose not to sign it. Stop trying to defend freedom stargazer.
@vteam02 -- You did sign the social contract when your parents signed your birth certificate or when you emigrated and signed a written and legal document proclaiming your loyalty. The social contract is real, legally valid and enforceable but you are free any time you wish to leave the US and form your Utopian state. Or you can just go to Somalia and be a pirate.
It's voluntary because you have a free choice. Yes, your parents made a choice for you just like every immigrant's parents made a choice for them. You don't have to leave but if you really object to the US on a moral basis then I think you have a moral obligation to leave and seek out or create a state more to your liking. I suggest Somalia, the Libertarian Paradise. May I book your flight now?
What's wrong with withdrawing my support and staying on my property? If I have a free choice, then such withdrawal should come with no threats. Unless you could made the case that my property belongs to the government.
I'd like to touch on another point. I'm getting the feeling that you think anarchism is about not having governments, this isn't true. And arbitration in a stateless society has been discussed to death. I'm curious what you think about some of the ways it has been proposed.
1) Yes, the gov of the US has legal ownership of it's land through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies. There are real signed contracts that you may inspect anytime you wish.
2) Try not paying your rent and see if your withdrawal is without threat. The other party to a contract has the legal right to enforce it's terms.
3) I am unimpressed with the arguments I have heard from Anarchists. Their reasoning is glib and superficial. Their ideas of human nature deeply flawed.
1) False. The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government. All immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship.
2) You claim that the other party to a contract has no legal right to enforce said contract? You're welcome to your opinion. I encourage you to test it out in real life, find out if it's true.
3) All that I am aware of. You appear to be no different than the rest. Just the same tired arguments easily refuted.
1) But you'd have to prove the contract in the first place is one predicated on legitimate ownership and not, just, you know, a massive assertion. Get to it.
The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.
Actually, no it can't. To demonstrate ownership over the entire US territory the original seller would also have to have had ownership over them to begin with, which they did not. So, at best it'd have partial ownership by way of contract (which, by the way, would be terminable and not extend into infinity) with a small subset of individuals who did agree to "bequeath" these rights.
BTW there's a further issue involved here - whether the original owner's claim was valid. If not, said invalidity would extend all the way down. And land the US gov't usurped would effectively be... up for grabs.
Unless you are a communist you also believe in the right to property and ALL PROPERTY is based on might. Recognition that the fundamental nature of property is based on force is essential to recognition that there are costs and benefits to the principle of property.
Might doesn't make right, it makes the ABILITY to make something right or wrong. ALL utopian governments that have tried to abolish force have failed.
The US did not claim its territory through homesteading. The people who DID homestead the land did not all give their consent, they were forced to, pretty violently too if you look at something like the whiskey rebellion
You are misreading history. The whiskey rebellion was about taxation, not property rights. Even if you were right the state has to right and the duty to enforce it's laws.
A better example would be our revolution for independence. There was no legal means under Brit law for the colonists to simply declare themselves a nation. But they did and they succeeded because they were able to back up their will by force. That's how it works.
No, they, like you, gave their consent by remaining within the territories of the US which was a legal state and had the right to tax it's citizens through it's elected representatives. Taxation is a legal instrument and if you don't like it your options are to lobby the gov, vote or run for office for it's repeal. Neither you nor they have the right to rebel but if you do you'd damn well better make sure you win. The state has the moral right to enforce it's contracts including taxation.
The US did not homestead the land, the people did. The US did not receive consent from everyone, hence forced some homesteaders to "consent." Which invalidates the contract.
This doesn't even take into account the people who were here before who were forced out, which should be a blow in of itself.
You're still going on about this? -- The people of the US constitute the legal entity known as the US. So yes, the US has legal title to all it's lands a territories. Nor do you need to get consent from every single person in a democracy in order for the state to conduct legal business. It is sufficient that you are represented and can vote. You can always leave if you don't like it.
The US acquired much of it's land through legal treaties made with the natives. But sadly, also through conquest
The difference is that I accept the reality that force plays in the world and that in order to have certain things I have to pay for them. That payment sometimes comes as the fact that others have more power or more that I have duties and obligations.
Taxes (and all that comes with that) are the price we pay for civilization.
All that I am aware of?" You just want make assertions and pretend that you've read anarchist arguments. Moragauth, thanks for showing it more clearly.
The contract is null and void. There is no reason to respect it, and you will have to furnish some evidence that the government did not just claim vast expanses of land by dictum as opposed to homesteading the entire territory of the US to make this 'argument' work. Even if the US gov't DID get the original settlers to agree to it, you've the issue that their descendants never signed.
You don't have to physically sign the social contract. Your continued residence constitutes your acceptance of it's terms. If you don't agree you are free to leave anytime.
Apparently it's fine to make unilateral contracts with no exit clauses which allow one party to unilaterally increase/decrease prices and quantities of services provided, rule you and be a monopolist of final appeal in all judicial decisions between you and itself. You can never, EVER terminate this contract, regardless of whether it is one where the one party had legitimate ownership over that which it claims. Bear in mind kiddies: a contract that is a mere promise is null and void nonsense.
You have an exit clause, there is a door at the border, feel free to use it. If you don't like the services provided there is a fair system in use we like to call Democracy. YOU are the government and YOU are being fairly represented. Don't like it? Get out there and run for office, lobby your rep or vote.
You've an exit clause, it is called telling the 'service provider' you no longer want its uses. You have an abortion of a system called democracy where mere "majority" can impose its will over 49% of non-consenting individuals and like to pretend this is rule by the people, and you like to pretend that the system is not made so as to favour well-connected existing families/politicians. Do you believe this bullshit?
If you don't like the US constitutional democracy and it's electoral system you are free to go elsewhere to your liking or form your own Libertarian Utopia. No, the US is not perfect but I doubt your ideas will work. Still, if you feel you can convince the majority of those in the US that your ideas are superior then have at it.
How is Vermont BTW? Boy! Didn't that work out swell!
I suggest you compare countries that are analogous to one another, like, you know, comparing Somalia to nearby African nations of a similar level of development, or perhaps, realise that Somalia suffers from massive UN nanny-interventionism. But then you'd have to be intellectually honest, come up with an argument and not rely on the appeal to authority called the "constitution". Sort of like my neighbour saying "I can legislate over your property, you've free choice to go..." yeah, sure.
Yes, your neighbour CAN legislate your property. You have duties and obligations in addition to your property rights. Your ownership is limited, not absolute. Go ahead and see if you have the mineral or water rights to your property.
It's called living in a universe with other people. Try it sometime.
OK, I claim that your children are mine to harass into infinity, because I as your neighbour can legislate your property, yours and their self-ownership is not absolute and because you have "duties" and "obligations" (pulled out of my ass) in addition to said rights. Don't like having them harassed? You're free to move. It's called living in a universe with other people. Try it sometime.
There are existing laws against harassment but you are welcome to try to get them repealed if you can. If you violate them I will call the police who will enforce those laws. If your idea of living in a community is that you can do as you please you will have a very difficult life.
You are correct that I have duties and obligations to my children and I think it is just that if I violate them the legal representatives of the state will come and enforce them. I willingly submit to those laws.
I feel sorry for Stargazer for even trying to debate you... I could see from the first video that your not interested in ideas, rational debates or philosophy. No, your interested in being superior.
You incoherently drone on about statism and then cry straw-man when someone call you on it.
You are the perfect pseudo-intellectual elitist, arrogant, self-absorbed, condescending, passive aggressive, useless.
The funny thing is how vapid and ignorant you are... Thanks for the laughs.
Jonathon THIS was a fantastic video, thank you! I was not upset over whether or not you agreed with me - I went into it knowing you disagreed with me. I was upset you were making assertions rather than asking questions. THIS video you asked many questions and made many fantastic points. Thank you.
However, collective decision making of this sort is hugely problematic in practice. Democracy is prone to aggregation of logically inaggregatable choices (Arrow Theorum), to rational irrationality and rational ignorance on the part of the voter, to perverse incentives due to election cycles, to majority impotence, etc. And those who are given power via democracy to draft/interpret/enforce a constitution of axioms are faced with systemic, structural perverse incentives and knowledge limits.
Regarding the filing of reports in error or fraud. I'm assuming the rating agency would want evidence. I don't see why you would need to deal with the business that filed the report to clear your name.
I'm not really following your debate, so I might be missing something.
Yup. Everybody is moderated by everybody. That is to a large extent true in today's world as well, but absent government protection it is reasonable to assume that people would be more diligent about who they did business with.
Whether it's optimal or not or not is of course entirely up for debate.
So if you propose a "government by axiom," how are those axioms arrived at, interpreted, and enforced? How (by what processes) do those humans come to have this power? What are the structural, systemic incentives those humans face? What is the empirical record of republican forms of government with regards to formation, legal constancy, etc.?
Formation: a constitution of axioms must be arrived at, interpreted, enforced by some kind of collective decision making and projection of legitimacy.
Part of it. I'll rewatch it out and perhaps make a relatively brief video response as this is getting too long for comments. Thus you can disregard these comments. Your reasoned argumentation here is welcome btw.
Most anti-statists essentially view the state as a small group of people, relatively arbitrarily chosen, who enjoy an ideologically institutionalized monopoly over legitimized proactive physical coercion. This is often overstated or poorly stated, but it's a strong point. The relatively arbitrary nature of the state - democratic, monarchic, or otherwise - is supported by logical analyses of those kinds of government/formation of government ie. public choice economics.
constitution limiting government? Both the Articles of Confederation and our modern Constitution did and do this. Someone, please correct me if I'm babbling statist propaganda. Lol.
ToriesPolishBoy 2 years ago
In this new Constitution, we have the concepts like the clock-work universe and checks/balances. All of which limit the size of the three branches of our government. This is all detailed in the Constitution. I mean, they did leave little wiggle room, certainly allowing our federal government to grow to the size with the branches have evolved. However, our government was designed to be inefficient and to prevent one group from holding complete authority . How is this not an example of a...
ToriesPolishBoy 2 years ago
Wait a minute? I mean, I'm fairly ignorant of political theory, but doesn't our Constitution limit government. Anyone step in at anytime if I have this wrong.
One of the driving forces behind the Founders was to limit the size of a centralized government. We had the Articles of Confederation first which gave the states tons of power and rendered the central government weak. Then came along the Philadelphia Convention of 1984 (I think) and poof...we have the Constituion we know and love today
ToriesPolishBoy 2 years ago
Great video and great argument, Jerico. Regardless of the fact that I have no particular stance in political philosophy at the moment, there is no denying that you made a wonder argument, one that will be very difficult to dispute.
McTaggStar 2 years ago
hey jerico,
I'm with you on this one! But didn't you make a video called, "Confessions of an Anarchist?" a long time ago?
I'm too lazy to go find out lol
p.s. Ron Paul right?
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
ya. I did one. follow the logic, let the labels chase you.
jericomovie 2 years ago
"follow the logic, let the labels chase you."
AMEN to that brother!
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Oh how I miss the times when I disagreed with you. :)
Keep up the good work here.
trick0171 2 years ago
But in a stateless society there is a real simple solution to the problem of those who don't live up to their agreements. Me and a couple buddies get together and pay the delinquent party a little visit and "reason" with him.
This is why in ALL failed or pre-constitutional societies we have the rule of strongmen and warlords. The Anarcho/Libertarian utopia is a nightmare of thugs and barbarism.
1noen1 2 years ago
Governments and constitutions are created by the collective intentionality of the people involved. The state is an agreement, a social contract, between it's citizens. But no contract can cover every eventuality. That's why we have lawyers and finance fraud and corruption. The state also requires a monopoly on violence in order to enforce the contract.
1noen1 2 years ago
Great video Jonathan.
What you are describing at the end is simply a nested heirarchy. It's an age old problem, if the cops are watching the criminals, who's watching the cops? "The state" is nothing more than the top level of that nested heirarchy. And the constitution with it's balance of powers does all that is possible to ensure that each branch of government is watching the others to keep them in check.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
A very good video, I must say. You point out the critical flaw in an anarchist assertion and the flaws with it. I don't agree with the social contract theory, per say, but you still destroy his position, in my opinion. Most excellent, sir!
DiscipleofAbbadon85 2 years ago
You got him good.
zach9899 2 years ago
A state is coercive because it doesn't allow secession :(
vteam02 2 years ago
This has gotten out of control I think. Either you support our desire to secede or you support force on us for trying it. There's no social contract, because an agreement can't be a contract if I can't choose not to sign it. Stop trying to defend freedom stargazer.
vteam02 2 years ago
@vteam02 -- You did sign the social contract when your parents signed your birth certificate or when you emigrated and signed a written and legal document proclaiming your loyalty. The social contract is real, legally valid and enforceable but you are free any time you wish to leave the US and form your Utopian state. Or you can just go to Somalia and be a pirate.
FREEDUMB!
1noen1 2 years ago
How does that make it voluntary? Because my parents did it?
Why do I have to leave? That seems more like a threat than an argument.
vteam02 2 years ago
It's voluntary because you have a free choice. Yes, your parents made a choice for you just like every immigrant's parents made a choice for them. You don't have to leave but if you really object to the US on a moral basis then I think you have a moral obligation to leave and seek out or create a state more to your liking. I suggest Somalia, the Libertarian Paradise. May I book your flight now?
1noen1 2 years ago
What's wrong with withdrawing my support and staying on my property? If I have a free choice, then such withdrawal should come with no threats. Unless you could made the case that my property belongs to the government.
I'd like to touch on another point. I'm getting the feeling that you think anarchism is about not having governments, this isn't true. And arbitration in a stateless society has been discussed to death. I'm curious what you think about some of the ways it has been proposed.
vteam02 2 years ago
1) Yes, the gov of the US has legal ownership of it's land through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies. There are real signed contracts that you may inspect anytime you wish.
2) Try not paying your rent and see if your withdrawal is without threat. The other party to a contract has the legal right to enforce it's terms.
3) I am unimpressed with the arguments I have heard from Anarchists. Their reasoning is glib and superficial. Their ideas of human nature deeply flawed.
1noen1 2 years ago
1) this has been countered by Spooner
2) no
3) which ones?
vteam02 2 years ago
1) False. The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government. All immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship.
2) You claim that the other party to a contract has no legal right to enforce said contract? You're welcome to your opinion. I encourage you to test it out in real life, find out if it's true.
3) All that I am aware of. You appear to be no different than the rest. Just the same tired arguments easily refuted.
1noen1 2 years ago
1) But you'd have to prove the contract in the first place is one predicated on legitimate ownership and not, just, you know, a massive assertion. Get to it.
Moragauth 2 years ago
The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.
1noen1 2 years ago
Actually, no it can't. To demonstrate ownership over the entire US territory the original seller would also have to have had ownership over them to begin with, which they did not. So, at best it'd have partial ownership by way of contract (which, by the way, would be terminable and not extend into infinity) with a small subset of individuals who did agree to "bequeath" these rights.
Moragauth 2 years ago
BTW there's a further issue involved here - whether the original owner's claim was valid. If not, said invalidity would extend all the way down. And land the US gov't usurped would effectively be... up for grabs.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Unless you are a communist you also believe in the right to property and ALL PROPERTY is based on might. Recognition that the fundamental nature of property is based on force is essential to recognition that there are costs and benefits to the principle of property.
Might doesn't make right, it makes the ABILITY to make something right or wrong. ALL utopian governments that have tried to abolish force have failed.
1noen1 2 years ago
The US did not claim its territory through homesteading. The people who DID homestead the land did not all give their consent, they were forced to, pretty violently too if you look at something like the whiskey rebellion
vteam02 2 years ago
You are misreading history. The whiskey rebellion was about taxation, not property rights. Even if you were right the state has to right and the duty to enforce it's laws.
A better example would be our revolution for independence. There was no legal means under Brit law for the colonists to simply declare themselves a nation. But they did and they succeeded because they were able to back up their will by force. That's how it works.
1noen1 2 years ago
This isn't about either, its about consent, and there was none
vteam02 2 years ago
well not none none. some did not consent, is a better phrase
vteam02 2 years ago
No, they, like you, gave their consent by remaining within the territories of the US which was a legal state and had the right to tax it's citizens through it's elected representatives. Taxation is a legal instrument and if you don't like it your options are to lobby the gov, vote or run for office for it's repeal. Neither you nor they have the right to rebel but if you do you'd damn well better make sure you win. The state has the moral right to enforce it's contracts including taxation.
1noen1 2 years ago
The US did not homestead the land, the people did. The US did not receive consent from everyone, hence forced some homesteaders to "consent." Which invalidates the contract.
This doesn't even take into account the people who were here before who were forced out, which should be a blow in of itself.
vteam02 2 years ago
You're still going on about this? -- The people of the US constitute the legal entity known as the US. So yes, the US has legal title to all it's lands a territories. Nor do you need to get consent from every single person in a democracy in order for the state to conduct legal business. It is sufficient that you are represented and can vote. You can always leave if you don't like it.
The US acquired much of it's land through legal treaties made with the natives. But sadly, also through conquest
1noen1 2 years ago
Its ok now. I understand your position more clearly.
vteam02 2 years ago
The difference is that I accept the reality that force plays in the world and that in order to have certain things I have to pay for them. That payment sometimes comes as the fact that others have more power or more that I have duties and obligations.
Taxes (and all that comes with that) are the price we pay for civilization.
1noen1 2 years ago
All that I am aware of?" You just want make assertions and pretend that you've read anarchist arguments. Moragauth, thanks for showing it more clearly.
vteam02 2 years ago
The contract is null and void. There is no reason to respect it, and you will have to furnish some evidence that the government did not just claim vast expanses of land by dictum as opposed to homesteading the entire territory of the US to make this 'argument' work. Even if the US gov't DID get the original settlers to agree to it, you've the issue that their descendants never signed.
Moragauth 2 years ago
You don't have to physically sign the social contract. Your continued residence constitutes your acceptance of it's terms. If you don't agree you are free to leave anytime.
1noen1 2 years ago
Fine, you've still got the huge issue of all the unclaimed territory in the US which the US gov't pretends to own.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Apparently it's fine to make unilateral contracts with no exit clauses which allow one party to unilaterally increase/decrease prices and quantities of services provided, rule you and be a monopolist of final appeal in all judicial decisions between you and itself. You can never, EVER terminate this contract, regardless of whether it is one where the one party had legitimate ownership over that which it claims. Bear in mind kiddies: a contract that is a mere promise is null and void nonsense.
Moragauth 2 years ago
You have an exit clause, there is a door at the border, feel free to use it. If you don't like the services provided there is a fair system in use we like to call Democracy. YOU are the government and YOU are being fairly represented. Don't like it? Get out there and run for office, lobby your rep or vote.
1noen1 2 years ago
You've an exit clause, it is called telling the 'service provider' you no longer want its uses. You have an abortion of a system called democracy where mere "majority" can impose its will over 49% of non-consenting individuals and like to pretend this is rule by the people, and you like to pretend that the system is not made so as to favour well-connected existing families/politicians. Do you believe this bullshit?
Moragauth 2 years ago
services*
Moragauth 2 years ago
If you don't like the US constitutional democracy and it's electoral system you are free to go elsewhere to your liking or form your own Libertarian Utopia. No, the US is not perfect but I doubt your ideas will work. Still, if you feel you can convince the majority of those in the US that your ideas are superior then have at it.
How is Vermont BTW? Boy! Didn't that work out swell!
1noen1 2 years ago
you leave
vteam02 2 years ago
I suggest you compare countries that are analogous to one another, like, you know, comparing Somalia to nearby African nations of a similar level of development, or perhaps, realise that Somalia suffers from massive UN nanny-interventionism. But then you'd have to be intellectually honest, come up with an argument and not rely on the appeal to authority called the "constitution". Sort of like my neighbour saying "I can legislate over your property, you've free choice to go..." yeah, sure.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Yes, your neighbour CAN legislate your property. You have duties and obligations in addition to your property rights. Your ownership is limited, not absolute. Go ahead and see if you have the mineral or water rights to your property.
It's called living in a universe with other people. Try it sometime.
1noen1 2 years ago
OK, I claim that your children are mine to harass into infinity, because I as your neighbour can legislate your property, yours and their self-ownership is not absolute and because you have "duties" and "obligations" (pulled out of my ass) in addition to said rights. Don't like having them harassed? You're free to move. It's called living in a universe with other people. Try it sometime.
Moragauth 2 years ago
There are existing laws against harassment but you are welcome to try to get them repealed if you can. If you violate them I will call the police who will enforce those laws. If your idea of living in a community is that you can do as you please you will have a very difficult life.
You are correct that I have duties and obligations to my children and I think it is just that if I violate them the legal representatives of the state will come and enforce them. I willingly submit to those laws.
1noen1 2 years ago
It's not real, legally valid and if it is enforced, it is in the way a dictatorship can enforce its wishes. Try again.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Hmm, I wasn't impressed with his argument at all. I've seen much better from other anarchists.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Oh gawd, I'm wearing a red shirt. D:
Aren't his ideas and theories just leading to some form of government in the end?
seraphinapandora 2 years ago
could be
jericomovie 2 years ago
everything is based on "whim", because everything is essentially a matter of preference.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Not Logic :P
95TurboSol 2 years ago
not an argument :P
DeraJa 2 years ago
I feel sorry for Stargazer for even trying to debate you... I could see from the first video that your not interested in ideas, rational debates or philosophy. No, your interested in being superior.
You incoherently drone on about statism and then cry straw-man when someone call you on it.
You are the perfect pseudo-intellectual elitist, arrogant, self-absorbed, condescending, passive aggressive, useless.
The funny thing is how vapid and ignorant you are... Thanks for the laughs.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
Jonathon THIS was a fantastic video, thank you! I was not upset over whether or not you agreed with me - I went into it knowing you disagreed with me. I was upset you were making assertions rather than asking questions. THIS video you asked many questions and made many fantastic points. Thank you.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
However, collective decision making of this sort is hugely problematic in practice. Democracy is prone to aggregation of logically inaggregatable choices (Arrow Theorum), to rational irrationality and rational ignorance on the part of the voter, to perverse incentives due to election cycles, to majority impotence, etc. And those who are given power via democracy to draft/interpret/enforce a constitution of axioms are faced with systemic, structural perverse incentives and knowledge limits.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Regarding the filing of reports in error or fraud. I'm assuming the rating agency would want evidence. I don't see why you would need to deal with the business that filed the report to clear your name.
I'm not really following your debate, so I might be missing something.
surGeonGG 2 years ago
I'm saying the rating agency could do the error or fraud.
jericomovie 2 years ago
Ah. Then it's easy enough. The rating agency is moderated by its own reputation. We could have rating agencies rating rating agencies.
surGeonGG 2 years ago
did you catch the end of this video?
jericomovie 2 years ago
You mean where you said "If everyone is trying to keep track of everyone else, then nobody is, in the end, accountable to anyone"?
They are, if not accountable, moderated by their customers. That's how this anarchy thing works for the most part.
surGeonGG 2 years ago
everyone is a customer
jericomovie 2 years ago
Yup. Everybody is moderated by everybody. That is to a large extent true in today's world as well, but absent government protection it is reasonable to assume that people would be more diligent about who they did business with.
Whether it's optimal or not or not is of course entirely up for debate.
surGeonGG 2 years ago
So if you propose a "government by axiom," how are those axioms arrived at, interpreted, and enforced? How (by what processes) do those humans come to have this power? What are the structural, systemic incentives those humans face? What is the empirical record of republican forms of government with regards to formation, legal constancy, etc.?
Formation: a constitution of axioms must be arrived at, interpreted, enforced by some kind of collective decision making and projection of legitimacy.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
did you catch my first video in this exchange?
jericomovie 2 years ago
Part of it. I'll rewatch it out and perhaps make a relatively brief video response as this is getting too long for comments. Thus you can disregard these comments. Your reasoned argumentation here is welcome btw.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
likewise
jericomovie 2 years ago
Most anti-statists essentially view the state as a small group of people, relatively arbitrarily chosen, who enjoy an ideologically institutionalized monopoly over legitimized proactive physical coercion. This is often overstated or poorly stated, but it's a strong point. The relatively arbitrary nature of the state - democratic, monarchic, or otherwise - is supported by logical analyses of those kinds of government/formation of government ie. public choice economics.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
ナイスムービ！！それから、ＧＯＯＤ日本語
hicsk0725 2 years ago
ありがとう！頑張ります！
jericomovie 2 years ago