Why I was wrong about the Atheist death count
Also, that those functions could be accomplished through other completely unrelated means. I don't think that either one of us would describe the stories we tell children of the history of the United States as a religion, but it seems to fit the framework you offered.
But that's sort of the point of the first post I wrote -- I think people view "religion" as something sui generis and I think there's a lot of benefit to recognizing how thoroughly social it is in relation to other socio-cultural phenomena.
Issue: Poverty, answer: The State
issue: Education, answer: The State
issue: Healthcare, answer: The State
issue: Economy, answer: The State
issue: Hurt feelings, answer: The State
issue: People use speech in a way they don’t like, answer The State
and on and on and on…
issue: Education, answer: The State
issue: Healthcare, answer: The State
issue: Economy, answer: The State
issue: Hurt feelings, answer: The State
issue: People use speech in a way they don’t like, answer The State
and on and on and on…
But the more fundamental issue is just that it's sort of intrinsically human to solve social problems (of whatever sort) via social institutions which regulate life. This isn't fundamentally different in state societies than it is in a hunter-gatherer band. I don't think it involves any qualitatively new or unique form of "state worship" or anything like that. Your presentation is also too much of a caricature.
But, I did quote Durkheim because I think there's something in the comparison between the role of traditional religious institutions and beliefs and "secular" beliefs and institutions, as far as that regulatory role. It's just that from an anthropological standpoint I also think your notion of a stable "voluntary society" is incompatible with how human social behavior really works.
I have no problem with this distinction, but it gets a bit metaphysical, I think. Or we could just resort to nominalism. But I'd probably prefer to just rephrase the original question. I'm not concerned so much with what religion "is" in the sense you're drawing out. Instead I think what social scientists like Geertz or Durkheim are doing is first of all observing that humans engage in this very interesting kind of collective behavior, and wanting to understand how that behavior arises, why there are such consistent patterns to it across different times and cultures, and so on. Functional explanations are mostly trying to get at those how/why questions, rather than trying to elaborate some kind of ontology. Although Durkheim has an interesting ontology of "social facts"...
I think a study of how christianity has evolved to match (work for?) the societies it has existed within through the millennia would be interesting to read.
Right. I think that's both to the point that Geertz' definition of religion is blurred with just a definition of a "cultural system," as well as being related to what I said earlier in the thread about viewing secularization as being (in some sense) a "transformation of religion" instead of only being a decline of religiosity, given the above kind of definition.
But that's sort of the point of the first post I wrote -- I think people view "religion" as something sui generis and I think there's a lot of benefit to recognizing how thoroughly social it is in relation to other socio-cultural phenomena.
But that's sort of the point of the first post I wrote -- I think people view "religion" as something sui generis and I think there's a lot of benefit to recognizing how thoroughly social it is in relation to other socio-cultural phenomena.
Also a hard sell to angry atheists but they are.just *******s, so who cares?
Instead of looking at religion and irreligion as causes, it seems that having loads of resources is the primary cause. We definitely wouldn't have major atrocities if we didn't have so much of those pesky resources.
Well, since no one here seems to be arguing against my side of the argument, we can consider it completely settled. It is hereby now known to be true, for the purpose of this thread, that atheists have morals and that those who think otherwise are just silly.
What species will have this society and on what planet will it be? It doesn't sound like it is within the capabilities of any species that I am aware of. This seems like an important detail.
Does retaliation break it? Surely you go and get your stuff back if it is taken by someone who thought that their right to your property was of a higher order than the right to your former property that you believe you have, right?
Can you also take stuff in the amount necessary to cover the costs of your expedition to retrieve your stuff, or is that not allowed?
Can you also take stuff in the amount necessary to cover the costs of your expedition to retrieve your stuff, or is that not allowed?
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow
Seems strange to limit it so. We might be at an impasse if your only concern in the world is mass atrocities. I happen to prefer to not be killed in tiny atrocities just as much as in mass ones.
Tons of horses is a pretty big resource. Granted, it wouldn't be considered a big resource nowadays given technological advancement.
My view of the species is pretty favorable. I happen to have the benefit of knowing some history, so I am aware that outsourcing of violence has generally been a positive development in regards to the odds of dying a violent death.
So, force would be outsourced to insurance companies? I'm fairly certain that we have tried outsourcing force to private companies before. It didn't turn out well.
It is too bad that the Jews didn't have holocaust insurance.
Looking forward to it. Fun conversation so far.
Well that's just not true. Genghis khan seemed to just fine with very little resources.
Well, I would just have to disagree. I would add that the consolidation of, and monopoly of, violent force seems to be a terrible idea given your view of all species.
More likely there would be some sort of third party insurance company that would handle this. There is tons of info and books written about how this sort of society could operate.
It is too bad that the Jews didn't have holocaust insurance.
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said, "
Do you really believe the only reason everyone doesn't chop each other up with machetes when there is a difference is because of those saints in Washington DC are keeping us all honest? Really?"
Did you mean something different than the obvious implications that could be derived from the words that you used? Please clarify.
Do you really believe the only reason everyone doesn't chop each other up with machetes when there is a difference is because of those saints in Washington DC are keeping us all honest? Really?"
Did you mean something different than the obvious implications that could be derived from the words that you used? Please clarify.
Maybe everyone gets a club or a machete to handle their differences?
There is probably a reason for there not being any large scale stateless societies.
There is also probably a reason for there not being many small-scale societies.
There is also probably a reason for there not being many small-scale societies.
Can you even name a stateless society?
What was your point? It seems to have gotten lost to me somewhere.
Tons of horses is a pretty big resource. Granted, it wouldn't be considered a big resource nowadays given technological advancement.
My view of the species is pretty favorable.
I happen to have the benefit of knowing some history, so I am aware that outsourcing of violence has generally been a positive development in regards to the odds of dying a violent death.
So, force would be outsourced to insurance companies?
I'm fairly certain that we have tried outsourcing force to private companies before. It didn't turn out well.
It is too bad that the Jews didn't have holocaust insurance.
Looking forward to it. Fun conversation so far.
Well, I didn’t really give any methodology so that’s fair. My change in belief stems from a better understanding of people and learning more about history. I thought a lot about what would cause people to not only be ok with mass slaughter, but actually advocate the slaughter. Of course none of the people at the time would actually admit that’s their position. How does the average person become a Nazi under Hitler? Or a communist under Mao? In pretty much every case of mass slaughter in the last 100 years the groups at the core of this atrocity were fueled by a foundation of “for the greater good”. No one thought they were the bad guys. When an individual thinks what they are doing is for the betterment of the “common people” the are filled with a moral righteousness that allows them to continue. I think this moral superiority is required for the average person to support horrific acts. Atheism doesn’t give you that on its own. Maybe some pull this out of atheism, but it doesn’t exist in the lack of belief in God inherently. That’s why I reconsidered. There is just nothing in atheism that can truly drive millions of people to act in the way they have historically acted.
I would disagree. Yes, I was being a little hyperbolic here, but the core of what I said stands. The “left” primarily differentiates itself as an ideology by turning to the state. Look at the current Democratic party.
Issue: Poverty, answer: The State
issue: Education, answer: The State
issue: Healthcare, answer: The State
issue: Economy, answer: The State
issue: Hurt feelings, answer: The State
issue: People use speech in a way they don’t like, answer The State
and on and on and on…
All the issues that the left tries to solve with the State is either caused by the State, or made exponentially worse as a result of State intervention. This is the dogma of the statist. Notice no mainstream democrat is advocating for more freedom. Except for maybe marijuana.
Issue: Poverty, answer: The State
issue: Education, answer: The State
issue: Healthcare, answer: The State
issue: Economy, answer: The State
issue: Hurt feelings, answer: The State
issue: People use speech in a way they don’t like, answer The State
and on and on and on…
All the issues that the left tries to solve with the State is either caused by the State, or made exponentially worse as a result of State intervention. This is the dogma of the statist. Notice no mainstream democrat is advocating for more freedom. Except for maybe marijuana.
I don’t know the people you know, so I’ll take your word. But the fact is, those people are very very rare. Your average democratic national socialist Bernie support does not want freedom. They want authoritarian control over everyone else’s lives.
Bernie Sanders:
In order to accomplish that goal, it means committing ourselves to protecting political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect economic rights of all people in this country.
As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected political rights. And while we understand that these rights have not always been respected and we have so much more work to do, we are proud that our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, a free press and other rights because we understand that we can never have true American freedom unless we are free from authoritarian tyranny.
Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.
We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.
That is what I mean by democratic socialism.
In order to accomplish that goal, it means committing ourselves to protecting political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect economic rights of all people in this country.
As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected political rights. And while we understand that these rights have not always been respected and we have so much more work to do, we are proud that our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, a free press and other rights because we understand that we can never have true American freedom unless we are free from authoritarian tyranny.
Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.
We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.
That is what I mean by democratic socialism.
I'll just say that I don't think a belief in "the State" gives you this either. I'll agree wholeheartedly that political ideology can be sincerely used by normal people to justify horrific acts. But the government seems a pallid thing here. Nationalism, racial and class identity, religious identity, adherence to political ideals, and so on all seem like more likely candidates to me. I think for most people the government never gets far beyond being a means to some other end.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "liberal" in the political philosophy sense, not the sense when it is used to refer to Democratic Party ideology. The idea that some parts of life are private and so should be left up to the individual rather than controlled by the state is central to liberalism in the sense I'm talking about. This includes things like religion, where liberal theory would generally condemn state intervention into individual religious practice. Thus, nearly all liberals would have to reject the claim that the state can solve all problems - eg it can't solve religious problems. If some people act in anti-social ways because of their religious beliefs, that is not a problem for the state to solve according to liberalism (given certain parameters).
Not sure what you mean by the bolded, I'm doubtful that many Nazis are big Bernie supporters. I also disagree about the average democratic socialist Bernie supporter. For instance, here is Bernie from a recent speech laying out what he means by "democratic socialism" as including:
Sanders seems pretty clearly to understand his own project as one that includes freedom of religion, expression, assembly, press, etc, which would preclude authoritarianism.
And that term "Authoritarian" seems to be completely miss-understood in the public. People refer to Trump as such, yet don't refer to Obama as such. Same with Fascist.
I would have to push back here. Many people see their political party being in charge as an extension of themselves and a feeling that they are justly commanding others for "their own good". Power definitely corrupts. And having your party in charge for many people is a power. This is just one example.
Again, please account for my hyperbole.
As a descriptive matter, I also disagree that American liberal ideology is primarily differentiated by turning to the state. I think the current right also looks to the state for solving the problems they are concerned with, eg crime, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
He calls himself a "democratic socialist" who only supports this socialism for his country. So it is more accurately national socialism. Or "democratic" national socialism.
Was it not slavery when slaves were allowed to get their own job? Is something really not authoritarianism because you are allowed to choose one thing on your own? So at what point does it cross over to authoritarianism? At what point does it not matter what the technical term describes, the loss of freedom is impactful enough it might as well be authoritarianism?
And that term "Authoritarian" seems to be completely miss-understood in the public. People refer to Trump as such, yet don't refer to Obama as such. Same with Fascist.
And that term "Authoritarian" seems to be completely miss-understood in the public. People refer to Trump as such, yet don't refer to Obama as such. Same with Fascist.
Yes, people definitely want power, I'll agree with that. And people do identify with their party (although I'll point out that neither party is very popular right now), but their party, even when their candidates are elected to office, are neither the government nor the state (at least, not in democracies).
The state or government is the group of people that currently hold a monopoly on aggressive force. Statists are those that support this system. The idea that the "government is the people" is demonstrably false.
Okay, but then I'm not really sure what you mean by statist.
As a descriptive matter, I also disagree that American liberal ideology is primarily differentiated by turning to the state. I think the current right also looks to the state for solving the problems they are concerned with, eg crime, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Whatever, these word games are stupid. We all know that "national socialist" means Nazi, not someone who is both a nationalist and a socialist. Also, I'm skeptical that Bernie is much of a nationalist.
I don't really understand your viewpoint. I would say that if a government guaranteed a right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, etc that it is not an authoritarian government. It might have other problems - eg if it has a managed economy it is probably becoming poorer, but that doesn't mean it is authoritarian. It might even be a tyranny, but authoritarianism in particular is characterized by government control or limitation of political rights such as speech, assembly, press, etc.
I'm using authoritarian as defined "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." It would seem under that definition my comments are reasonable.
The state or government is the group of people that currently hold a monopoly on aggressive force. Statists are those that support this system. The idea that the "government is the people" is demonstrably false.
Those in government on the right are really no different than the left. The ideology of conservatism is different. To be clear, I'm no fan of the right.
Isn't "democratic socialism" word games? Ok, you don't want to play word games, fine. I don't care what Bernie calls himself etc, he and his followers want to use violent force the steal from peaceful people as well as throw you in a cage for doing anything they don't like.
The bolded looks like that hyperbole thing again.
Look, you want to stop using the word authoritarian, fine. I don't care what you call it. And as a point of fact, most on the left do not believe in free speech. And the others are suspect.
I'm using authoritarian as defined "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." It would seem under that definition my comments are reasonable.
I'm using authoritarian as defined "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." It would seem under that definition my comments are reasonable.
Right. So Weber says in Politics as a Vocation that "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." This is a plausible way of understanding a state. So if you support a community successfully claiming a monopoly on legitimate use of physical force you are a "statist" and if you don't then you are probably an anarchist. In these terms, I'm definitely a "statist." I believe some uses of violence are legitimate, eg police, courts, and the military, and I prefer to live in a territory where some single group of people have a monopoly over these forms of violence rather than competing groups.
I would want to add that I don't believe all statists are religious. Just most.
[quoteObviously I disagree and view the left and the right as very different.[/quote]
Someone once said "The right is just the left driving the speed limit". Look at what the right supports today and compare it to what the left supported 20 years ago.
No. Democratic socialism is an old political idea that goes back to the nineteenth century as a way to understand socialism. As for what Bernie wants, eh, I don't think you have any special insight here. Yes, from anarcho-capitalist principles Bernie advocates for using violent force to steal from people. I don't accept AC principles, so I don't agree with this claim, but this disagreement isn't about Bernie, but about our differing priors regarding AC principles.
The bolded looks like that hyperbole thing again.
Okay, then I guess I favor "authoritarianism" as well as "statism." I favor strict obedience to just laws, even if they are at the expense of personal freedom.
I would imagine that you don't agree with all the laws, correct?
I would want to add that I don't believe all statists are religious. Just most.
Someone once said "The right is just the left driving the speed limit". Look at what the right supports today and compare it to what the left supported 20 years ago.
You don't have to accept AC principles. My description is accurate and anything else is word games.
Sure a little, but it's close to pretty accurate.
What constitutes a "just" law? Whose opinion of "just" are we forced to adhere to?
It's not a word game, I'm just using the standard way this term is used in political science and philosophy. I know some conservatives make a distinction between republics and democracies, but they are not mutually exclusive. A republic can be non-democratic (eg the Roman Republic) or it can be democratic, eg the US. The US is a democracy because its leaders are chosen largely through elections.
Sure, I don't agree with all the laws, but I think we should obey the law, even bad laws (although not always).
Sure, I don't agree with all the laws, but I think we should obey the law, even bad laws (although not always).
That's fine, I don't view being called "religious" as an insult.
Wow, so that sounds like a huge difference between the right and left if you understand politics as a dynamic system (as I do). To extend your metaphor, the speed at which you drive is a literal life-and-death issue.
According to AC principles, taxation is theft. I don't accept the AC principles that lead to the claim that taxation is theft, so I don't think Sanders wants to steal from people by proposing to increase their taxes.
Okay.
A just law is a fair law. In a democratic society like the US, we are forced to adhere to the opinions of political leaders, public opinion broadly, media figures and celebrities, businesspeople and other rich people, labor union leaders and other special interests leaders, judges and lawyers, and so on regarding what is "just."
A just law is a fair law. In a democratic society like the US, we are forced to adhere to the opinions of political leaders, public opinion broadly, media figures and celebrities, businesspeople and other rich people, labor union leaders and other special interests leaders, judges and lawyers, and so on regarding what is "just."
This is a pretty general question, I can't say I use a single method. I look at its likely consequences as policy, its legality, whether it is consistent with other rights and laws, the effects on the political system, etc.
Okay, give me the argument using premises I accept that taxation is theft.
No, you asked me whose opinion of what is "just" we are forced to adhere to, but that doesn't mean that they are correct.
I'm not ducking the question. The most influential English-language political philosopher of the 20th century defined justice as fairness (in part through using a conceptual tool he called the "original position"), and I'm referring to his theory of justice here.
Taxation isn't theft under AC principles. Taxation is theft by definition. It's under statist ideology that it's not. I don't subscribe to the idea that the state owns us. Slavers didn't think they were stealing the labor of their slaves, but they were.
So what is "just" is what the elites decide that day?
And saying a "just" law is a "fair" law just kicks the can. Obv, my next question would have to be, what is a fair law?
Okay, give me the argument using premises I accept that taxation is theft.
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.
This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.
No, you asked me whose opinion of what is "just" we are forced to adhere to, but that doesn't mean that they are correct.
I'm not ducking the question. The most influential English-language political philosopher of the 20th century defined justice as fairness (in part through using a conceptual tool he called the "original position"), and I'm referring to his theory of justice here.
The point is not for you to give me a methodology, but to point out that your position and my position are not actually different. You and I would probably agree on 95% of things we think are wrong when talking about the acts of an individual. You make special pleading for the government on some laws. I make no such special pleading and hold the state the same as an individual.
1. Theft is the act of taking someone else's property without permission
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.
This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.
Exactly. You said you favor obedience to just laws. I asked who determines what's just, you said the elites (paraphrased). So you favor obedience to laws determined by the elites.
I don't have time to read that, care to summarize the "original position"?
1. Theft is the act of taking someone else's property without permission
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.
This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.
Exactly. You said you favor obedience to just laws. I asked who determines what's just, you said the elites (paraphrased). So you favor obedience to laws determined by the elites.
I don't have time to read that, care to summarize the "original position"?
If an individual is not the owner of themselves, then who would be and why?
I can't help but think of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech (a favourite, not least because of some of the reactions it got!).
Hard to argue with your two points. Which is why I have twice voted for the Libertarian candidate for president, and will probably do so a third time in 2020.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
I never heard that nor thought that it was implied. It's just saying that religious ideologies aren't any more murderous than political ideologies.
Ideology = Bad. Conservatism(the antithesis of ideology) = Good.
The point is not for you to give me a methodology, but to point out that your position and my position are not actually different. You and I would probably agree on 95% of things we think are wrong when talking about the acts of an individual. You make special pleading for the government on some laws. I make no such special pleading and hold the state the same as an individual.
1. Theft is the act of taking someone else's property without permission
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.
This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.
This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.
However, because this land was too much for a single person to use, they would grant feudal estates to their lords under a structure called fee simple. This meant that those lords would have some ownership rights over that land, but must then promise to provide the monarch with a certain number of soldiers during war. Later on this was converted into an obligation to pay taxes to the monarch.
Now, the US doesn't have a monarch. But we do still use English common law as the basis for property rights, including the concept of fee simple ownership. Thus, when you buy land in the US, you are not purchasing allodial title in the land (since the person selling it to you doesn't have that title), but a fee simple title. Thus, your purchase of the land carries with it certain obligations, including an obligation to pay property taxes to the government.
Thus, in the same way that when you take ownership of a car or house that is not fully paid off you are also accepting the obligation to pay the lender back, when you take ownership of land in the US you are accepting the obligation to pay property taxes. Thus, (4) is false.
Exactly. You said you favor obedience to just laws. I asked who determines what's just, you said the elites (paraphrased). So you favor obedience to laws determined by the elites.
I don't have time to read that, care to summarize the "original position"?
1.Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
a) They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
b) They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
I would reject premise (1). Theft is not, in practice, taking without permission. It's taking in violation of established social norms. "Permission" is a component of those norms but not the only one.
In this case the "established" norms are formalized in common law, so that history and the shape of the law is relevant and interesting, but I think libertarians are usually making a moral, and not legal, argument, and would tend to reject the legal argument as irrelevant. So I think the more fundamental issue is with their definition of theft, and with their way of conceptualizing morality.
In this case the "established" norms are formalized in common law, so that history and the shape of the law is relevant and interesting, but I think libertarians are usually making a moral, and not legal, argument, and would tend to reject the legal argument as irrelevant. So I think the more fundamental issue is with their definition of theft, and with their way of conceptualizing morality.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE