Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

[Hugh Akston]

Whatever you want to call the state of dysfunction and only obeying while being watched in the US, the truth is there's a very large range of observed acceptance among the peoples of various men with guns living arrangements. When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing. Failed states look very different from the US or Japan or Norway or France or whatever. You might wish all people acted as though all state power were illegitimate, but I don't think you observe that in the real world across states.

If you observed nicole and I with the sound off, you would see that we drive on the right, stop at stop signs, pick up after our dogs, pay our taxes (voluntarily!), sort our recyclables, pay our speeding tickets rather than burn down city hall, and eat at Chipotle when we're hungry rather than cracking open our neighbors' skulls and feasting on their brains. Presumably for no other reason than we recognize the system's legitimacy.

Yep, pretty much.

You asked what legitimacy means. That's it.

So there's no system either global or historical that's not legitimate, because most of the people living under them went along rather than throwing away their lives by resisting.

[nicole]

Might makes right Hugh.

[Jadagul]

Whatever you want to call the state of dysfunction and only obeying while being watched in the US, the truth is there's a very large range of observed acceptance among the peoples of various men with guns living arrangements. When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing. Failed states look very different from the US or Japan or Norway or France or whatever. You might wish all people acted as though all state power were illegitimate, but I don't think you observe that in the real world across states.

If you observed nicole and I with the sound off, you would see that we drive on the right, stop at stop signs, pick up after our dogs, pay our taxes (voluntarily!), sort our recyclables, pay our speeding tickets rather than burn down city hall, and eat at Chipotle when we're hungry rather than cracking open our neighbors' skulls and feasting on their brains. Presumably for no other reason than we recognize the system's legitimacy.

Yep, pretty much.

You asked what legitimacy means. That's it.

So there's no system either global or historical that's not legitimate, because most of the people living under them went along rather than throwing away their lives by resisting.

There are two questions you could ask about legitimacy, I think.

One is roughly "do you think this system is good/worthy of support?" And your answer to this of course depends on your philosophical commitments. I think a system that's better than most other reasonably likely possibilities is worth a reasonable amount of support, and I think we live in such a system.

The other is more plausibly what you and Jason were discussing, and is roughly "do most of the people in the system basically follow the rules when no one is looking?" And despite your mocking, there is a dramatic variation between different societies and different legal systems in the extent to which people do, in fact, follow the rules in the dark.

A system that most people treat as legitimate has major advantages. Pretty much any system will have a lot of good rules, even if it also has many bad rules---we all benefit from people mostly buying into "no murder, assault, theft, or rape". And people mostly following the system also means that fewer resources are spent tracking down violators. (It's obviously better if you can have less mugging and also less policing).

If the system is bad enough in other ways, that can outweigh these disadvantages, which is why civil disobedience and/or rebellion are often justified. Given that I think our current system is in, like, the top five percent of plausible places we could wind up, I don't think it's justified here.

[Shem]

There's a self-described communist on Tumblr I really respect. He says that it's ethically mandatory to work towards the abolition of all hierarchy. And also he supported Clinton over Sanders in 2016 because he thought her policies would be much better at making people well-off in the short and medium term.

It's worth noting that by the end of his life Marx seemed to be arguing that attempting to immanentize the rise of socialism/communism would be, in all likelihood, doomed to failure. The ability of the capitalist system to drive ever higher levels of production would be as necessary to the emergence of a socialist system as the dialectic between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Eventually, the increase in material standards would combine with the synthesis wrought by the dialectic to create a new, socialist system. Trying to skip the steps of the process would be like throwing eggs, sugar, flour and butter into a hot oven and expecting a cake. He would have found Leninism to be misguided at best, purely on the basis of his economic theory and before even considering all the other horrific crap that happened.

[Warren]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

[lunchstealer]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

[Warren]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

[tr0g]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

I think a large breakdown of trust in America occurred in the mortgage crisis and aftermath. Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered. When you watch that writ large, why should you be the chump doing things the 'right' way and get screwed for it?

[Warren]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

I think a large breakdown of trust in America occurred in the mortgage crisis and aftermath. Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered. When you watch that writ large, why should you be the chump doing things the 'right' way and get screwed for it?

Good point. I remember being taken aback at how the financial industry just threw out all the rules in order to keep those on top, on top. Like how could anyone ever trust the system again? But it's the only system we got right?

[Shem]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

[lunchstealer]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

That's an idiotic thing to say. Delusional my hairy white ass. It's just head-in-the-sand cowardice to refuse to recognize what's right in front of your face.

Yes, trust took a hit during the financial crisis. It's taken hits before. The S&L crisis before, Nixon, etc. But there were always people working hard to restore it. Trump is exploiting it for his own purposes and doing it openly and brazenly, and shitting all over it. He's establishing a precedent of having the guy in the bully pulpit saying that it doesn't fucking matter.

That's a kind of dangerous that we haven't seen before. It's Nixon-level shit, but Nixon at least knew what he was doing. He did it badly, but he knew. Trump is just a narcissistic cretin rampaging around doing idiotic shit with absolutely no attempt to even understand. It's possible that people will come around and say, "Hey we can't afford to have an idiot in charge again," but I doubt it.

Now if you just want to watch it burn, then sure, Warren. Pretend it doesn't matter.

But BEST case scenario if Trump is the new norm is the US turning into a resource-rich Italy. Otherwise we're looking at going towards Brazil-levels of open corruption.

Trump is institutionalizing lower trust behavior. That's never good.

[Warren]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

All of those 850K were owner occupied?

[Shem]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

All of those 850K were owner occupied?

Suppose none of them were; did the people who lost them wind up any less punished?

[Warren]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

All of those 850K were owner occupied?

Suppose none of them were; did the people who lost them wind up any less punished?

I'm going to go with yes. I take it you have a different take?

[Shem]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

All of those 850K were owner occupied?

Suppose none of them were; did the people who lost them wind up any less punished?

I'm going to go with yes. I take it you have a different take?

Either way you were punished by at least the loss of your investment. And the bank gets a bailout, then gets to sell the house for a profit. It's simply not true that nobody was punished. It would actually have been better for the system if that were the case; at least that would have been even across all actors. Instead, people got punishment that was completely unconnected to their culpability for the crash. That's what really damages the system.

[Warren]

Everybody was cheating the system, nobody got punished, and nobody really suffered.

Something like 850,000 families lost their homes. I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, especially when you consider that the houses reverted to people who were just as guilty for them to sell off once the market improved.

All of those 850K were owner occupied?

Suppose none of them were; did the people who lost them wind up any less punished?

I'm going to go with yes. I take it you have a different take?

Either way you were punished by at least the loss of your investment. And the bank gets a bailout, then gets to sell the house for a profit. It's simply not true that nobody was punished. It would actually have been better for the system if that were the case; at least that would have been even across all actors. Instead, people got punishment that was completely unconnected to their culpability for the crash. That's what really damages the system.

I know many people suffered, but my understanding is that in the vast majority of cases where houses were repossessed by the bank, the owners had next to no investment and defaulted the moment they were upside down. What would have been better is if Goldman Sachs had been left to twist in the wind like Lehman.

[Hugh Akston]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

Would you care to expound on this?

[Warren]

When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing.

Yes. This is pretty much the last "This is what makes America great" that I'm hanging on to.

The high rate of contractual adherence. High-trust societies ftw, which is one of the reasons I think you're mistaken about the damage Trump is doing. He's undermining the assumption of good faith that drives America's high-trust society. The repercussions won't be limited to attitudes towards government. People won't adhere as closely to societal norms, either, which will make us more third-worldy. If you're* going to be a Western chauvinist, at least recognize what makes America great - and it ain't being white or being Christian. It's being trustworthy. Trump isn't and it's bad bad bad.

*not you-Warren you, you-#MAGAs you.

I think you're straight up delusional about Trump eroding assumption of good faith. To the extent that's happening, it's being driven by wokeness.

Would you care to expound on this?

Maybe later