Search ideas

Could conflict among "competing governments" be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?--enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign "competing governments." She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"

The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.

Competing arbitration agencies would develop objective (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments, they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.

Tragically, the original American theory of [limited] government was breached, shelved, trashed long ago. But that's another story.

Convenient. Maybe if he investigated that story a bit more he’d realize that the government qua institution isn’t all that? The rampant failures of the American government to remain limited are something objectivists need to explain, not just gloss over!

Ask yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.

In reality, enforcement of laws would only be a small part of what competing arbitration services would have offer. They would come up with laws, revise, simplify, and otherwise improve laws, protect their customers, coordinate with each other, and more. Lots of value creation.

Ask yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.

Governments already compete on a global scale. So why isn’t the world in a perpetual state of war?

See #17.

Superseded by #897. This comment was generated automatically.

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

It cannot be. This is an attempt to step outside of nature rather than obey it, even though objectivists normally advocate obeying it.

The police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and the economic calculation problem apply.

Any attempt to ignore or evade this reality leads to police forces and justice systems that are, all else being equal, worse than they would be in a free market because they don’t correct errors as well as they otherwise would.

See #267.

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

It cannot be. This is an attempt to step outside of nature rather than obey it, even though objectivists normally advocate obeying it.

The police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and the economic calculation problem apply.

Any attempt to ignore or evade this reality leads to police forces and justice systems that are, all else being equal, worse than they would be in a free market because they don’t correct errors as well as they otherwise would.

Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value.

That isn’t true.

People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value.

Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar created.

Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.

Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled [‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’] for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.

Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.

Could the errors around layouts be related to this?

I’ve heard that but I don’t know if that’s even true. If it is, the killing shouldn’t be considered a double homicide until after week 6.

Homicide is “a killing of one human being by another”. If an embryo isn’t a person yet, its death can’t be homicide.

Killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, so aborting until week 6 can’t be right.

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they feel conflicted about? In school.¹

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?¹ In school.²

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?¹ In school.²

¹ I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke and doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know part of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.
² This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of the major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?*

* I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke and doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know part of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.

Superseded by #755. This comment was generated automatically.

If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.

If he knows he doesn’t want to do it, that sounds like he doesn’t feel conflicted about wanting to do it. Being conflicted is simultaneously wanting it and not wanting it.

(Amaro Koberle)

If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.

(Amaro Koberle)

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?