Activity feed
Link to referenced idea
So children already have freedom of thought? You originally said (#34) that children only have freedom of thought when their minds have reached a certain level of maturity; that this was the purpose of school in the first place. That doesn't fit together.
#38 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoForcing someone to think is impossible. The student remains free in his thoughts.
(Kant)
Expecting a child to keep his freedom of thought in the face of all that pressure is not realistic.
#38 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoForcing someone to think is impossible. The student remains free in his thoughts.
(Kant)
So children already have freedom of thought? You originally said that children only have freedom of thought when their minds have reached a certain level of maturity; that this was the purpose of school in the first place. That doesn't fit together.
#37 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIf freedom of choice is sufficiently restricted, freedom of thought is also restricted.
Anyone who is forced to spend hours every day dealing with topics they would otherwise not deal with has neither freedom of choice nor freedom of thought.
Forcing someone to think is impossible. The student remains free in his thoughts.
(Kant)
#36 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoWe need to distinguish between freedom of choice and freedom of thought.
School serves to educate students to have freedom of thought. This is achieved by restricting freedom of choice.
(Kant)
If freedom of choice is sufficiently restricted, freedom of thought is also restricted.
Anyone who is forced to spend hours every day dealing with topics they would otherwise not deal with has neither freedom of choice nor freedom of thought.
#35 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoThat is not what freedom means.
Freedom does not consist in the guarantee of certain thoughts or scope for action.
Roughly speaking, freedom is when you are left alone by others when you want to be left alone.
If you are sent to school against your will, you are not free. School is a forced program.
Forcing children to be free is a contradiction in terms.
We need to distinguish between freedom of choice and freedom of thought.
School serves to educate students to have freedom of thought. This is achieved by restricting freedom of choice.
(Kant)
#34 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoFreedom is achieved when the mind reaches a certain level of intellectual maturity: when it thinks for itself.
This is the purpose of compulsory education: to liberate children.
(Kant)
That is not what freedom means.
Freedom does not consist in the guarantee of certain thoughts or scope for action.
Roughly speaking, freedom is when you are left alone by others when you want to be left alone.
If you are sent to school against your will, you are not free. School is a forced program.
Forcing children to be free is a contradiction in terms.
Archive of a discussion tree between Dennis Hackethal and Roswitha Kant from the old Veritula website. The creation dates of the ideas were not retained but newly set. The discussion originally took place in German between August and October 2023 and can be viewed in full here.
Freedom is achieved when the mind reaches a certain level of intellectual maturity: when it thinks for itself.
This is the purpose of compulsory education: to liberate children.
(Kant)
#25 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoDispute resolution, lawmaking, and personal defense are only proper in the hands of government.
In order for a military and police to be valid, it would need the consent of the governed […], but a hidden qualification is MOST of the governed, which is an exception to individual right of association.
And:
[Rand’s] conclusion, in essence, is that an individuals [sic] right to choose who defends them should be ignored for the sake of a collective good, which seems to me an exception to one of our shared principles.
#1 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoThe anarcho-capitalist stance: competing governments in a single territory would not only work but be superior to having a single government, a monopoly on violence.
Dispute resolution, lawmaking, and personal defense are only proper in the hands of government.
#23 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoGovernment creates consent. Without government, there is no consent.
It doesn’t. Not any more than it creates man’s rights. Whether an interaction is consensual is derived from the nature of the interaction itself.
#1 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoThe anarcho-capitalist stance: competing governments in a single territory would not only work but be superior to having a single government, a monopoly on violence.
Government creates consent. Without government, there is no consent.
#14 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoOne illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
Taken to its logical conclusion, Rand’s argument necessitates a single world government, which doesn’t fit with the objectivist notion that government should be limited.
#20 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months ago[…] I disagree that international law and agreements are such a shining example for having anarchy on a local scale. The defense of my rights from someone who lives in my neighborhood shouldn’t rely on the extradition agreements between our two protection agencies, there should be clearly established rules about how what rights of action we have and don’t have, and it should be clearly established how we can resolve disputes about those issues. And if my neighbors all have different agencies, then it cannot be practically clear to me what all of those actions and resolutions are.
In anticipation of this problem, different protection agencies would develop such rules and procedures, which could be publicly accessible for their customers to peruse.
Solving this problem is one of the main value propositions these agencies have to offer. Without a solution, people won’t give them money. So these agencies have an incentive to put their heads together and come up with common standards.
For novel situations where they don’t have an applicable standard yet, see the myth of the framework (#16).
#17 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoA common libertarian argument is that governments already compete. They are already in a state of anarchy with each other, yet the world still works somehow, and states can and do have agreements and common standards (eg extradition rules).
[…] I disagree that international law and agreements are such a shining example for having anarchy on a local scale. The defense of my rights from someone who lives in my neighborhood shouldn’t rely on the extradition agreements between our two protection agencies, there should be clearly established rules about how what rights of action we have and don’t have, and it should be clearly established how we can resolve disputes about those issues. And if my neighbors all have different agencies, then it cannot be practically clear to me what all of those actions and resolutions are.
Governments do wage wars against each other, but private arbitration services would be less inclined to do so because, unlike governments, they do not have an effectively infinite amount of extorted money (taxes), fiat money, and human lives to draw from.
#17 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoA common libertarian argument is that governments already compete. They are already in a state of anarchy with each other, yet the world still works somehow, and states can and do have agreements and common standards (eg extradition rules).
Governments often wage war against each other.
#14 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoOne illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
A common libertarian argument is that governments already compete. They are already in a state of anarchy with each other, yet the world still works somehow, and states can and do have agreements and common standards (eg extradition rules).
#14 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoOne illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
Rand’s illustration is an instance of a mistake Karl Popper calls the myth of the framework: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework
#14 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoOne illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
Libertarians such as David Friedman have explained how that situation could be resolved peaceably:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yo7vnXmVlw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PnkC7CNvyI
#1 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoThe anarcho-capitalist stance: competing governments in a single territory would not only work but be superior to having a single government, a monopoly on violence.
One illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
#12 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoKodoKB points out a risk of abuse:
The use of retaliatory force has an objective risk of being misapplied and therefore of violating the rights of others.
Related: #4
A monopoly on violence amplifies the risk of abuse.
#11 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoDefensive force and security services are productive endeavors.
Retaliatory force is only part thereof, and defense involves the employment of scarce resources, thus economic principles apply. (Logan Chipkin)
KodoKB points out a risk of abuse:
The use of retaliatory force has an objective risk of being misapplied and therefore of violating the rights of others.
Related: #4
#10 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months ago[There is a] difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production.
Rand says ancaps make the same mistake as “modern statists” – they don’t see this difference.
Defensive force and security services are productive endeavors.
Retaliatory force is only part thereof, and defense involves the employment of scarce resources, thus economic principles apply. (Logan Chipkin)
#1 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoThe anarcho-capitalist stance: competing governments in a single territory would not only work but be superior to having a single government, a monopoly on violence.
[There is a] difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production.
Rand says ancaps make the same mistake as “modern statists” – they don’t see this difference.