Kent McManigal Article: Consensus and 'need' are not sufficient
Paul Wakfer
sent to the author with an invitation to respond here. Please recall
from the description of this group: "The aim is not to criticize/blame,
but rather to discover/elucidate a consistent/complete philosophical
basis for a fully self-ordered free society."
Kent McManigal wrote:
>
> Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no other
> way of getting, but it is still /always /wrong
> <http://tinyurl.com/yejmhpu> to use coercion.
This is a standard libertarian fallacy. Yes it is wrong to use
government since government is ultimately nothing but the use of
physical force against others without their Permission in order to steal
their Property and/or reduce their Liberty, all of which reduce their
Available Actions (Freedom - not the same as Liberty - see the
difference at: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#freedom). However
that does not mean that coercion per se is always wrong - eg. use of
physical force to stop a child from running into the street or use of
physical force to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in front of
an oncoming car, without hir permission ahead of its use. The first case
is always Permitted by the parent who is the effective Owner of child,
but it is even permitted for others since the result of the action is
almost always beneficial. For the second, the result could be harm to
the person involved, even if less than would have occurred. And if that
person were actually wanting to commit suicide then the harm could be
very great. In all such cases the correct view is to do what you think
will benefit yourself and all others, but be fully responsible for all
consequences of your actions in the sense of being willing to pay any
necessary restitution for any harm done.
> In the same vein, rape may be an effective way to "have sex" or to
> "feel strong and dominant" but it is /always /wrong, no matter
> how powerful your need and no matter the circumstances.
This ethical statement is correct, but it is so only because of the
meaning of "rape" - the use of physical force for any sexual purpose
clearly *not* permitted by the other party.
> Even if you would /die /unless you use government
> <http://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2009/08/government-definition.html>
> to steal on your behalf you are not right if you do so.
This statement is not valid based on the fundamental nature and purpose
of any lifeform - to do whatever is necessary to maximize its Lifetime
Happiness (see definition and reasoning at: "Social Meta-Needs: A New
Basis for Optimal
Interaction" <http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html>)
What *is* fundamentally necessary for a truly free, self-ordered society
is that any person needing to use force in order to save hir life is
also fully prepared to make Restitution for all harm done by such usage.
> This is a harsh reality, but it is still reality. Just like you may
> not like the fact that if you try to walk across the surface of the
> moon without protective equipment the realities of the Universe will
> cause your death.
This is *not* a reasonable metaphor, since it has no connection with
social interaction. The operations of social interactions which will be
optimal for everyone together (see the above link for what that really
means and how it can occur), are not necessarily similar to those on
non-social situations.
> You may think it is "not fair" but the Universe does not care.
This much is most certainly true, which is why I have always disliked
such phrases as "the cruel sea".
> "Fair" is not a part of reality, except when people with ethics
> intervene.
Actually "fair" has no valid meaning even then - it is always purely
subjective and opinions will vary.
> Intervention can go either way. People can intervene for good or for
> evil.
It is important to remember/realize that in the vast majority of cases
intervention is always intended to be beneficial for all. Intentional
evil is relatively rare. It is the *effect* of intervention by one
person with another that is invariably harmful, sometimes to all involved.
> Coercion, theft, and fraud are forms of intervention that are always
> on the side of evil
> <http://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2009/08/evil-definition.html> and
> /any /"good
> <http://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2009/09/common-good.html>" that can
> come from them is nullified by the harm they cause. Both to the
> aggressor and to his victim.
It is far better to use the words "harmful" and "beneficial", rather
than the moralistic terms "good" and "evil". Even though the former
terms are also subjective to each individual (as are all values), at
least they do not have the religious and emotional baggage associated
with the latter.
> If everyone- /every /regular person, /every /philosopher, /every
> /scientist, and /every other/ expert on earth throughout /all /of
> human history- agreed that aggression and theft were OK as long as you
> wear the silly hat of government, and not even one person /ever
> /questioned this premise, they would still all be wrong.
This is the ultimate non-democratic and individualistic statement, which
when generalized simply means that: The truths of reality are not
determinable merely by people's opinions - eg. even if every person on
earth thinks that the moon is made of green cheese that does not make it so.
Still as I pointed out above, the use of unpermitted physical force
(theft is such usage relative to objects owned by another) is sometimes
the right action to take (in the sense of most likely to increase one's
Lifetime Happiness) as long as one is prepared to be responsible for the
*results* of such action.
Additional critique will examine your writings and definitions to which
you linked in the current piece.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> This critique has been posted as a comment to the original article and
> sent to the author with an invitation to respond here.
1) The commenting on McManigal's website only allows a highly
abbreviated comment of 1000 characters, with no links. Therefore all
that I could do was to post the first paragraph of my critique and
disguise the link to here by replacing the "http://" by "URL:" (far
less than satisfactory).
2) Kent McManigal has joined this group and has been enabled to post,
but has not yet chosen to do so.
3) On March 26, 1:22 PM (I just found it), a commenter on McManigal's
website, identified only as "PeterB in Indianapolis" quoted only the
last two sentences of the first paragraph of my critique (the only
part that I had room to place there) and commented as follows:
> " However that does not mean that coercion per se is always wrong -
> eg. use of physical force to stop a child from running into the street
> or to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in front of
> an oncoming car, without hir permission ahead of its use."
>
> Sure, your argument applies just fine, TO A CHILD. A child has not
> formed all of the necessary neurons to understand that with freedom
> comes personal responsibility, and with personal responsibility comes
> caution and preparation. However, Libertarians understand the
> distinction between child and adult and realize that if you attempt to
> treat adults like children, you are violating the rights of the adult.
First, note that PeterB ignored my second example even though he
quoted it.
Second, note that I said nothing about "treat[ing] adults like
children", so his argument commits the logical fallacy called the
"straw man argument" - ie changing the point to one which is easier to
refute.
Nothing more needs to be said, except that I have now learned that I
probably would be always best to *not* use the child example as an
example of the rational use of coercion, but rather many others that
fully apply to adults.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational -http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -http://selfsip.org
Kent McManigal
with no internet for a week (I left just before you posted the initial
critique) and am still severely behind on several projects.
So, while I probably will respond, it will probably be on my Examiner
column. I don't have a lot of spare time to devote to writing for
other places right now. That means I will focus on the one that pays
me a pittance, rather than a freebie. I was watching to see how
active this site was, as well, to see how much priority to give the
response.
I think this is a good project. I do think it is good you define your
terms, as do I, but I also see that a lot of the disagreement comes
from conflicting definitions. I think that is inevitable.
If/when I do post my response, I will be sure to post a notice here.
Thanks.
Paul Wakfer
Kent McManigal wrote:
> I have been writing a response as I get time, but I was out of reach
> with no internet for a week (I left just before you posted the initial
> critique) and am still severely behind on several projects.
>
> So, while I probably will respond, it will probably be on my Examiner
> column. I don't have a lot of spare time to devote to writing for
> other places right now. That means I will focus on the one that pays
> me a pittance, rather than a freebie. I was watching to see how
> active this site was, as well, to see how much priority to give the
> response.
>
Since the group is new, there is not a lot of activity yet. But I plan
to keep posting critiques quite frequently (and I hope others will also
post critiques or comment on mine) and inviting the authors of the
critiqued articles to join the group and respond, so I optimistically
expect that there will soon be much more activity.
As for posting your response in your column, I understand the reason for
that, but unless you have given that site an "exclusive" contract, then
there is no reason why you cannot also post your response here where
inline quoting and automatic text level indications more highly enables
detailed clarity of discussion.
> I think this is a good project. I do think it is good you define your
> terms, as do I, but I also see that a lot of the disagreement comes
> from conflicting definitions. I think that is inevitable.
>
Conflicting definitions are not nearly as problematic as are the use of
ambiguous, unspecified terms. As long as your definitions are
well-formed, then we can at least discuss the utility of them versus
mine (which I think *are* all well-formed).
> If/when I do post my response, I will be sure to post a notice here.
>
As I said above you could post your response here as well, unless that
is forbidden by some contract, in which case I will likely post your
whole response, giving a link to its source of course. That is the only
way that I can appropriately respond (particularly since I discovered
that no links are allowed in comments at your column site and the
allowed size of comments there is too small for anything but a chat remark).
> Thanks.
>
Thanks again for responding,
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Kent McManigal
read them, please go to my Examiner column at tinyurl.com/ABQLiberty):
A comment a while back on this column led to a google group where that
particular column was critiqued. I don't really have the spare time
to get involved in any new discussion groups so I will address the
comments here and also post this column there, where I was invited to
participate.
For the time being I will focus on one particular disagreement the
author, Paul Wakfer, had with my assertion that it is always wrong to
use coercion. He says:
"Yes it is wrong to use government since the State is ultimately
nothing but the use of physical force against others without their
Permission in order to steal their Property and/or reduce their
Liberty." ... "However that does not mean that coercion per se is
always wrong - eg. use of physical force to stop a child from running
into the street or to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in
front of an oncoming car, without hir (sic) permission ahead of its
use."
I notice a bait and switch. Using physical force to stop a child from
running into the street is an "initiation of force", but it is not
"coercion". You can coerce without using any force at all; using only
words, guilt, threats, or other forms of manipulation. Coercion is
still always wrong.
Initiation of force may sometimes be necessary but you must always
understand you have NO RIGHT to initiate force. You can be held
accountable for your initiation of force, even if you did it with the
best of intentions. You must accept that you have stepped outside
exercising your rights into violating his, and you must accept any
consequences your actions bring.
Sometimes when you feel you must initiate force you can be forgiven by
your victim, such as in the case of the person about to step in front
of a bus. You do not have time to gather all the necessary
information before you act. This is why it is not a "fallacy", as he
claims, even though it can be complicated by circumstances. If the
person protests your "protective" actions, yet you persist in shoving
him out of the way, you have gone from simply initiating force to
actually using coercion to remove him from the bus' path. If the
person wanted to step in front of the bus (suicide is a basic right,
even if distasteful), then you might owe him restitution.
Of course, when he steps in front of the bus he would be initiating
force upon the passengers of the bus and causing damage to property
that is not his own. Your debt to him could be nullified by your
prevention of his initiation of force and resultant property
destruction. This is something to have in mind all the time. To me,
it is usually worth the risk, but I do understand where my rights end
and his begin. You do what you feel you must and accept any
consequences of your actions.
Mr. Wakfer also addresses the notion that the parent "is the effective
Owner of [a] child", and that this gives the parent the authority to
stop a child from running into the street. I do not believe a parent
owns the child. The child may be your responsibility, but to "own"
something gives you the right to destroy it. You do not have that
right with regards to "your" child. To stop a child from running into
the street is exercising your obligation to protect that child when
possible.
Why is it OK to protect a child using force, but not OK for the State
to protect me by using force? Mostly because I do not consent to
being "protected", nor do I need anyone's "protection" (especially
when it comes at the cost of other people's money and liberty). The
child lacks a fully-developed mind that would be capable of
understanding cause and effect and lacks experience in the everyday
laws of physics. It is sometimes hard to see the difference between
legitimately protecting the child and controlling him. The
distinction still exists whether you see it or not. Someday the world
will be free enough to make this type of discussion important.
Paul Wakfer
to my critique of his article in the inline reply style required for
this group. (The reasons for this requirement are detailed on the group
page "Why and How of the Group".) Since McManigal did not use this
reply style, I have done the best that I can to fairly transfer his
reply into that format before responding to it. Among the many reasons
why this reformatting was necessary was so that my own previous text
would be fully available and McManigal would not be enabled to
effectively be "quoting out of context", whether or not he intended to
do that (I make no evaluation or accusation relative to McManigal's
intentions or his conscious or subconscious tactics).
Most important of all is to state right off that a truly and fully
meaningful discussion of the concepts/methods that I have raised and a
critique of the related libertarian concepts/methods is not really
possible without a total immersion of the examples used within the
Freeman Society which emerges from my treatise on Social Meta-Needs
(SMN) - http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html Note
that all capitalized words (not beginning sentences or "proper nouns")
used within have the clear and unambiguous definitions given in the
Natural Social Contract (NSC) - http://www.selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
Kent McManigal wrote:
>> Kent McManigal wrote:
>>>
>>> Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no
>>> other way of getting, but it is still /always /wrong
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/yejmhpu> to use coercion.
>>
>> This is a standard libertarian fallacy.
McManigal.
>> Yes it is wrong to use
>> government since government is ultimately nothing but the use of
>> physical force against others without their Permission in order to steal
>> their Property and/or reduce their Liberty, all of which reduce their
>> Available Actions (Freedom - not the same as Liberty
>
>> - see the
>> difference at: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#freedom).
by McManigal.
Note that he omitted (and likely did not read) the link to important
definitions and descriptions of Freedom and Liberty, particularly
clearly differentiating them, all of which writings bring fundamental
new thoughts to bear on the question of whether or not coercion is
always wrong action.
>> However
>> that does not mean that coercion per se is always wrong - eg. use of
>> physical force to stop a child from running into the street or use of
>> physical force to prevent an unwary adult from stepping out in front of
>> an oncoming car, without hir permission ahead of its use.
"hir", however my use of "hir" was *not* a spelling error, but rather
the use of a gender neutral third person pronoun.
> I notice a bait and switch.
realize that I never use such tactics (as "bait and switch")
intentionally, and since I have trained myself all my life (of 72+
years) to be totally sincere frank, open and forthright, I do not think
that it is possible for me to use any such duplicitous tactics
unintentionally.
If I were to apply similar "tactical criticisms" to McManigal, then how
about "out of context" and "cherry-picking", but I have no desire to
analyze or question McManigal's tactics but rather only to respond to
the substantive meanings of his statements.
> Using physical force to stop a child from running into the street is
also inconsistent with the use of the word "coercion" by libertarians in
general.
"Coercion" means:
1 a : the act of coercing
: use of physical or moral force to compel to act or assent <some form
of /coercion/, overt or covert, which encroaches upon the natural
freedom of individuals -- John Dewey> b : a power or force that
coerces
<the submissive way of one long accustomed to obey under /coercion/ --
Charles Dickens>
2 : the application of sanctions or force by a government usually
accompanied by the suppression of constitutional liberties in order to
compel dissenters to conform </coercion/ acts>
3 : physical force tending to constrict or compress <the /coercion/
of the ice around the ship's bows>
*synonym* see FORCE
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=force>
"coercion." /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 13 Apr.
2010).
And for "Coerce":
Etymology: Latin /coercemacronre, /from /co- + arcemacronre /to shut up,
enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain, control, or dominate, nullifying individual will or
desire (as by force, power, violence, or intimidation) <religion has in
the past tried to /coerce/ the irreligious, by garish promises and
terrifying threats -- W.R.Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice by force, threat, or other
pressure <a person might no longer be /coerced /into an agreement not to
join a union -- /American Guide Series: Massachusetts/>
3 : to effect, bring about, establish, or enforce by force, threat,
or other pressure <struggles to /coerce/ uniformity of sentiment --
Felix Frankfurter>
*synonym* see FORCE
"coerce." /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 13 Apr.
2010).
Since the act of physically "stopping a child from running into the
street" most certainly is an act to "restrain, control, or dominate,
nullifying individual will or desire" and certainly is the "use of
physical or moral force to compel to act or assent", it most certainly
*is* a form of coercion. To maintain anything different is simply to end
up being totally inconsistent with one's use of words. (Note however,
that such inconsistency is not my major criticism of libertarian
writing. Rather the major problem with libertarian expositions is that
no amount of clarity and consistent use of definitions for the terms and
reasoning that they insist on using will enable a fully self-consistent
basis for those terms.)
> You can coerce without using any force at all; using only words,
> guilt, threats, or other forms of manipulation.
"coercion" (or "coerce") within my system founded by Social Meta-Needs
(SMN). In order to bring consistency and clarity to the forefront of any
understanding it is necessary to define unambiguous terms, particularly
in this instance to clearly differentiate between the use of physical
force and the use of only non-physically damaging sounds, looks,
gestures (in general, light transmitted information), etc. The key
difference is that if physical force is applied to the body of a person,
that person has no ability to *not* be physically affected by it (this
is basic physics and it is actually true of smells/gases and damaging
noise/EMR also).
However wrt the application of words and/or looks/gestures (ie
physiologically non-damaging reception of sound/light), both must be
evaluated by the mind of the receiver *before* they can have any effect
upon that receiver. In the words of an old adage: "Sticks and stones may
break my bones, but words will never hurt me". So in opposition to the
vernacular definition of coercion, if I were to define the word, I would
not accept "words", "guilt" (an evaluative effect of certain words) and
"threats" as being types of coercion. In my several decades of
experience with libertarians, I have found that most of them also do not
accept words or guilt as being coercive, but strangely enough (and again
inconsistently) all libertarians of which I am aware *do* consider that
threats are a kind of coercion. But then this is similar to most
libertarians insisting that politicians coerce people or that those who
hire thugs (users of direct physical force on others) are themselves
thugs, with neither of which do I agree.
Finally wrt "manipulation" the types of actions that fall under that
term are so broad that it could sometimes be coercive and sometimes not
be, so there is nothing to respond to regarding its inclusion above.
> Coercion is still always wrong.
But more substantively, the major question which McManigal ignores
within such a statement is the meaning of "wrong", together with the
specification of criteria for deciding whether or not an action is
"wrong". However to be fair I should point out that some of McManigal's
usages of "wrong" are linked to another of his articles "Understanding
right and wrong is not hard" - http://tinyurl.com/yejmhpu which to be
complete, I will need to also critique. Fully reality-based definitions
and criteria regarding right (as opposed to "rights") and wrong are
fundamental questions addressed and answered within SMN.
> Initiation of force may sometimes be necessary but you must always
> understand you have NO RIGHT to initiate force.
within reality. I have given two examples of social interaction (and
there are an unbounded number of others) where the initiation of force
(coercion) is the right action to take based on all knowledge available
to one (with "right" meaning that the actor's Evaluation is that such
action has the best chance to optimally increase the Lifetime Happiness
of all Connected persons - see SMN for details).
> You can be held accountable for your initiation of force, even if you
> did it with the best of intentions. You must accept that you have
> stepped outside exercising your rights into violating his, and you
> must accept any consequences your actions bring.
which I have discovered to be a consistent and complete basis for a
truly free and cooperative self-ordered society (founded by SMN). But
since he did not either quote the text within the whole to which he is
responding (which is not even directly available to the reader of this
new article as it is presented at *http://tinyurl.com/y7kn2rv*), wherein
I brought forth those very ideas and methods, his expression of them is
essentially passing them off as his own, tantamount to plagiarism. But
again to ignore the ethical impropriety and address the substance, yes,
everyone is necessarily accountable by reality itself for all of hir
actions, and, yes, if such action affects another person (is the
Effective Cause of some Harm to that other person), the *degree* of
accountability is not related to the intentionality of the action,
precisely because it is only related to the amount of "Harm" which that
other person Evaluates to have been the result of that action. But
unfortunately McManigal gives no explanation or justification for his
constant use of the commanding word "must". Without a reasoned
explanation and justification, all that a person needs to do is say "Who
says so?" and "Why must I?" to which McManigal (as with all
libertarians) would have no consistent fundamental reply. Rather than
"you must accept any consequences your actions bring", whatever that
really means, it would be far better to simply say: "In reality actions
always have consequences - reality does not allow one to both take an
action and not be affected by the results of that action." Again in my
system, the "Must" applies to those Responsibilities to which one has
agreed by Executing the NSC.
Finally I noted the strange phrase "exercising your rights". Even
accepting for the moment that "rights" has some consistent meaning, most
libertarians theorists have clearly and correctly pointed out that all
*correct* rights are negative in operation. One does not have the right
to *do* something - one only has the right to not have something done
*to* one. Therefore even under libertarianism there are actually no
rights to exercise. In fact it is only statists who ever maintain that
one has the right to do or get something.
> Sometimes when you feel you must initiate force you can be forgiven by
> your victim, such as in the case of the person about to step in front
> of a bus.
- by far the mostly likely situation) then there is no thought of
"forgiveness", but rather deep gratitude and perhaps even tangible
reward of some kind as the natural consequence of this coercive
(initiation of physical force) action by the one who has been coerced.
Very recently when walking through the desert, Jack placed his hands
solidly on Kitty's shoulders and forcefully pulled her backwards away
from a coiled rattlesnake that she had not noticed right in her path,
because we were all focused on conversation. Jack clearly coerced Kitty
into moving backwards against her (initial) wishes and intentions,
explaining as he was doing so. However the fully rational result was
deep thanks and gratitude toward Jack from Kitty and also from me.
> You do not have time to gather all the necessary information before
> you act. This is why it is not a "fallacy", as he claims, even though
> it can be complicated by circumstances.
validity or fallaciousness of a "principle".
1 b (1) : a governing law of conduct : an opinion, attitude, or
belief that exercises a directing influence on the life and behavior :
rule or code of usually good conduct by which one directs one's life or
actions.
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Apr. 2010)
To the extent that McManigal thinks so, then he has no understanding of
the meaning of "principle". Any principles that are generally or often
dependent on knowledge and circumstances are meaningless as correct
rules of action since anyone's decision on when to apply them is as
valid and anyone else's.
What I maintain is fallacious is the maxim that "coercion is always
wrong", which is a variant of what most libertarians seem to agree is
their one common principle - namely the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP):
"The *Non-Aggression Principle* [N.A.P.] formalizes a way of living that
many people already believe in:
No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force
against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.
-- L. Neil Smith <http://www.lneilsmith.com/>" -
http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=nonAggression
Any principle that is valid for reality is not going to constantly need
to be changed and excepted when "complicated by circumstances". If there
are clear exceptions then the principle is not fundamental enough and
needs to be replaced by something more fundamental with no exceptions
(or at least all exceptions clearly defined and categorized), if such
replacement is possible (which it is, because I have done it under the
foundations and applications of SMN).
> If the person protests your "protective" actions, yet you persist in
> shoving him out of the way, you have gone from simply initiating force
> to actually using coercion to remove him from the bus' path.
coercion and "simply initiating force", something that I have never seen
any libertarian try to make. No, the difference *after* the person has
given clear indication that s/he does not want the action taken is that
taking the action would now be clear Intentional Harm (note that the
Evaluation of Harm is always by the receiver, since s/he is the only one
who *can* Evaluate Harm to hirself - again read SMN for more elucidation
of this important point).
> If the person wanted to step in front of the bus (suicide is a basic
> right, even if distasteful), then you might owe him restitution.
correctly identifies the proper resolution of the Violation that will
have been committed under that circumstance (the use of restitution) -
but again omitting my quote so that it is clear that the ideas he is
writing originate (here at least) with me and instead essentially
passing it off as his own. Note that I have fully dissected this kind of
situation for all logically possible circumstances at:
http://www.selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/intent_benefit/index.html
and my employment of Restitution as the *only* rational response to
Violation has been a part of my Self Sovereign Individual Project
writings from its inception.
But again even under libertarian rights theory (again accepted
temporarily) suicide is not a "right". Rather *being not interfered
with* when one is trying to become dead (or when taking any other
non-violatory action) is what is one's "right".
> Of course, when he steps in front of the bus he would be initiating
> force upon the passengers of the bus and causing damage to property
> that is not his own.
thinking about the possible effects of actions in the posed example.
However while true for the posed example, his statement is not germane
to the essence of the example since another example could easily be made
where no harm would be done to anyone else by letting the person become
dead (say if s/he were about to fall off a cliff into a chasm of unowned
or commons land). (Or in the example mentioned above of Kitty possibly
being bitten by the rattlesnake, no one else or hir Property would be
physically Harmed.)
> Your debt to him could be nullified by your prevention of his
> initiation of force and resultant property destruction.
person-B for saving hir (person-B's) life. Perhaps McManigal is still
thinking of the rare situation where person-B wanted to die. However in
that case, if person-B were successfully stopped, no Harm would have
occurred to the oncoming vehicle or its contents, so there would be no
"debt" there to trade-off with the Harm done to person-B (the suicidee),
so even there McManigal is logically mixed up. OTOH, there might well be
Value Exchange from those in the car or bus, who would have been
Violated by the person stepping into their path, even though this is not
any formal debt or Restitution as such and is consequently entirely left
to the mechanisms of Social Preferencing to judge.
> This is something to have in mind all the time. To me, it is usually
> worth the risk, but I do understand where my rights end and his begin.
> You do what you feel you must and accept any consequences of your
> actions.
below) wherein they were stated. But "feel you must" is another strange
phrasing for which no basis whatever is given for *why* one would feel
(better is to *think*) that way, thus, leaving all readers with no
guidelines whatsoever about what is the *best* way to "feel".
>> The first case
>> is always Permitted by the parent who is the effective Owner of child,
>> but it is even permitted for others since the result of the action is
>> almost always beneficial.
of his response, McManigal did *not* quote the above in full.
> Mr. Wakfer also addresses the notion that the parent "is the effective
> Owner of [a] child",
Thanks for catching my omitted article (in the meaning as a part of
language), which actually should have been "[the] child" since I was
talking about a specific child - the one who was about to run into the
street.
> and that this gives the parent the authority to stop a child from
> child may be your responsibility, but to "own" something gives you the
> right to destroy it. You do not have that right with regards to "your"
> child.
relationship between parents and children. If, however, one thinks
deeply about the subject (as I have done over several decades, which
included having children of my own), one will come to the conclusion
that there is no consistent middle ground between that of a full peer
relationship and that of an Ownership/Property relationship. Since a
full peer relationship is clearly not tenable because of the inability
of a child to fully sustain itself, the only remaining problem is to
figure out how the methods of totally free interaction between adult
humans will effectively prevent the kinds of actions upon children that
clearly do not optimally increase the Lifetime Happiness of all rational
adults at the same time (the definition of "are clearly wrong"). In my
system, this prevention is effected by the mechanisms relating to the
transfer of Ownership of Property between Freemen and to strong (public)
Social Preferencing
(http://www.selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html) - the latter
similar to any other censure/prevention of actions by another person
upon any of hir property.
> To stop a child from running into the street is exercising your
Responsibilities, obligations cannot be imposed on another unilaterally.
They are only imposable (meaning that a person is correctly held
Responsible for them), as clauses of a Valid Contract between
individuals, which can also be a Social Contract executed by all
interacting peers in a Society. And once again, obligations are not
"exercised" but rather "adhered to". Therefore, an adult who is *not*
the Owner/parent/guardian of a child and has not Contracted with the
child's Owner/parent/guardian to act "in loco parentis" cannot have any
obligation or Responsibility to take any action with respect to it -
although s/he does have a Responsibility to *not* to take any action
that would Effectively Harm this Property of another adult (related to
the Entitlement of the Owner wrt hir Property granted by the Social
Contract).
> Why is it OK to protect a child using force, but not OK for the State
> to protect me by using force? Mostly because I do not consent to being
> "protected",
is incapable of giving such consent, then you will logically arrive at
the point that the child is therefore little different (no different
with respect to Entitlements) than any other kind of Owned life-form.
> nor do I need anyone's "protection" (especially when it comes at the
> cost of other people's money and liberty).
enforcement of those regulations all think that you *do* need such
protection from your own foolishness.
Furthermore, you have confused two completely separate issues here - the
loss of Liberty/Freedom (or the resultant Alteration of Choice
Evaluations) due to the initiation of force on the one hand, and the
theft of money from people (which yes also has a consequent similar loss
and Alteration) on the other. To separate them, imagine that a do-gooder
charity organization was also going around initiating force (*only*
State-authorized regulations) upon you for your "own good" (the State's
view of it). This would be at no involuntary expense to anyone else
(remember it's a fully privately financed charity organization, not the
tax-financed State), but it would still be just as wrong (with meaning
of "wrong" as previously defined).
> The child lacks a fully-developed mind that would be capable of
> understanding cause and effect and lacks experience in the everyday
> laws of physics.
not have all those abilities adequately developed. In fact this is more
frequently the case as time proceeds due to adults constantly being
treated as children by a paternalistic State.
> It is sometimes hard to see the difference between legitimately
> protecting the child and controlling him. The distinction still exists
> whether you see it or not.
attempts (and no special advanced technology is clearly needed) then
such distinction truly does not exist. At the least you would need to
start with precise definitions of "legitimately", "protecting" and
"controlling" to even begin to see that there are no consistent set of
objective criteria by which this distinction can be made. The actions of
parents upon children can only be monitored and ordered by means of the
subjective assessments of all others through the mechanism of strong
(public) Social Preferencing.
> Someday the world will be free enough to make this type of discussion
> important.
understand and describe to where they are heading, they most certainly
will never get there. To think otherwise is equivalent to a "deus ex
machina" view of the achievement of a free society - somehow, someway it
will all just work out right without even any clear definition of what
it really means and how it will work. And does "everyone living happily
ever after" accompany this juvenile (unreasoned) approach?
Note that McManigal did not quote any of my text below this point even
though he made use of some of the ideas from it without attribution as
if the ideas were his own origination at this point in time. In
addition, he did not address at all some of the important points made
within it.
to its non-foundational character and highly ambiguous undefined nature,
and also as a result of this incomplete and badly formatted response
from him (not to mention his use of my ideas without quotation or
attribution or even simple acknowledgement of agreement where that
exists, but rather writing as though my prior critique contained none of
his now expressed ideas), I have decided that it is very unlikely that I
will again critique any of his writings unless, of course, they clearly
refer to my ideas. My scarce time will be better spent elsewhere. The
only exception for the reasons stated above will be a critique of his
article "Understanding right and wrong is not hard" -
http://tinyurl.com/yejmhpu
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "Libertarian Critique".
To post (approval and full identification required): send email to libertaria...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe: send email to libertarian-crit...@googlegroups.com
More options at: http://groups.google.com/group/libertarian-critique?hl=en