The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

"Whenever we move away from voluntary collaboration, and try to do good via force, the bad moral value of force always triumphs over good intentions".

The very basic truth about social engineering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA

Blah, blah, blah.  More empty over-generalizations.  Classic example of libertarians taking an idea that is true at extremes, and making a leap of faith that it continues to be true at every other level.  No phenomenon is ever more complicated than a simple linear relationship in the simple minds of those who think they're the only ones in possession of "very basic truths".

[Tamas]

No phenomenon is ever more complicated than a simple linear relationship in the simple minds of those who think they're the only ones in possession of "very basic truths".

Ain't that the truth.


However, if you look at it, the basic guiding principles of all societies are pretty simple. "Cooperation, not coercion" is something that is a simple guiding principle. In practical life it would have to be the basis for more elaborate laws, obviously, but dissing a principle because it doesn't have small print, is a bit lame.

[Syt]

It's cute that you're so idealistic about human nature.

That cooperation only works to some degree, though. Greed, jealousy and pride will come into play, and will lead to outcomes where the haves coerce the have-nots, or vice versa.

[Martinus]

Yeah, according to the game theory, "cooperation not cooercion" is only true subject to some very specific conditions. It doesn't work when a number of interactions is so great, the same two people are unlikely to interact more than once, for example.

[DGuller]

No phenomenon is ever more complicated than a simple linear relationship in the simple minds of those who think they're the only ones in possession of "very basic truths".

Ain't that the truth.


However, if you look at it, the basic guiding principles of all societies are pretty simple. "Cooperation, not coercion" is something that is a simple guiding principle. In practical life it would have to be the basis for more elaborate laws, obviously, but dissing a principle because it doesn't have small print, is a bit lame.

It is both.  It's cooperation enforced by coercion.  You need cooperation for legitimacy, but you need coercion to maintain order and ensure that there are no free-riders. 

There are multiple ways to combine the two, and many of them are bad, but that's because it's a very complicated balance to get right.  My disdain for your quoted statement was not because of lack of fine print, but because of lack of large print.  Some issues really are not that simple, and stating them in a simple way, and on top of that sanctimoniously labeling them as a "very basic truth", is to fundamentally dumb down the discourse.

[Tamas]

It's cute that you're so idealistic about human nature.

That cooperation only works to some degree, though. Greed, jealousy and pride will come into play, and will lead to outcomes where the haves coerce the have-nots, or vice versa.

Yeah but look at the current answer to that. "Right, so there is greed of individuals, so to remove its negative effect, lets give bigger power to individuals then any private actor could assemble, and count on them not being greedy in their positions".

And before Raz and DGuller comes charging in, I am not an advocate of anarchy. But I believe a proper set of criminal laws ensuring a mostly level playing field in economic life, while not actively influencing the outcomes (mostly by concentrating on stopping/punishing outright lying to and endangering of customers, plus the sanctity of contracts), would be better than what we have now in most countries. And that is mostly because the idea of active influencing and regulating benefits the country as a whole is a very nasty big lie/illusion. It benefits whoever is able to influence the influence-makers. And that is big business, not the common people.

[Tamas]

No phenomenon is ever more complicated than a simple linear relationship in the simple minds of those who think they're the only ones in possession of "very basic truths".

Ain't that the truth.


However, if you look at it, the basic guiding principles of all societies are pretty simple. "Cooperation, not coercion" is something that is a simple guiding principle. In practical life it would have to be the basis for more elaborate laws, obviously, but dissing a principle because it doesn't have small print, is a bit lame.

It is both.  It's cooperation enforced by coercion.  You need cooperation for legitimacy, but you need coercion to maintain order and ensure that there are no free-riders. 

There are multiple ways to combine the two, and many of them are bad, but that's because it's a very complicated balance to get right.  My disdain for your quoted statement was not because of lack of fine print, but because of lack of large print.  Some issues really are not that simple, and stating them in a simple way, and on top of that sanctimoniously labeling them as a "very basic truth", is to fundamentally dumb down the discourse.

Well it was said, in the linked video, as a comparison between capitalism and Soviet Union style socialism, which makes the quote less "oversimplyfing".

I agree it is very generalised in the context of today's world, but still valid, because where the boundary shall be between cooperation guarded by the force of law, and force of law coercing the illusion of cooperation, is in my view the only real political divide in today's world.

[Sheilbh]

But I believe a proper set of criminal laws ensuring a mostly level playing field in economic life, while not actively influencing the outcomes (mostly by concentrating on stopping/punishing outright lying to and endangering of customers, plus the sanctity of contracts), would be better than what we have now in most countries. And that is mostly because the idea of active influencing and regulating benefits the country as a whole is a very nasty big lie/illusion. It benefits whoever is able to influence the influence-makers. And that is big business, not the common people.

Contract law isn't criminal

Also what you've described is, basically, the principles of English contract law - and I imagine Canadian and American contract law too. I don't see what it has to do with anything else.

[Ideologue]

Translation from Magyar: I come from a corrupt country, therefore all countries are corrupt.

[CountDeMoney]

I haff menny Adidas track suits for all size pipples, you buy now, no?

[Ed Anger]

Many gold chains, yes?

[CountDeMoney]

See?  Welour is your color.  You buy now.

[Tamas]

Smug twats, the lot of you.

[Ed Anger]

New shipment of DVD's! Much better than Blue Ray! One dolla!

[CountDeMoney]

I doubt being an RIAA counterfeit and piracy investigator is as much fun now as it used to be back in the day.

"'Bru Ray'?  C'mon, man, now you're not even trying."