'Rax's Rules of Life, #3, #407 & #1123: When arguing on the mesh, never, EVER, irk a person who bills themselves as "a philosopher and a historian," it will end badly for you. Case in point: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/01/factual-politics-1.html Richard's intro to the topic, he's laying out some underlying premises that aren't overly controversial:
It can be summed up as: (1) politics is about the regulation of power; (2) the purpose of government is to organize a collective enterprise for the maintenance of a civil society (in which all can effectively pursue their own happiness); (3) the moderate is the only rational political animal (conservatives and liberals each being right about some things and wrong about most things); (4) every political policy should come with objective outcome measures and be thoroughly subject to empirical test; and (5) evidence always trumps ideology.http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/01/factual-politics-2.html Here he takes down the idea that simple self organization is sufficient to preserve a civilized society:
It's one thing to say government should let you use dangerous chemicals safely and responsibly (I agree it should and would vote with you on that), but wholly another to say we should let you use any chemical you want in any way you want. And only government can keep you or anyone else from using [them] http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/01/factual-politics-3.html In part three, he takes the time to show how some of the more extreme anarchist memes just simply don't fit to facts regarding simple game theory:
[b]Benjamin said...[/b] [i]I suppose it somehow makes more sense to protect peoples' right to property by violating their right to property.[/i] Of course. I have to violate a murderer's right to life in defending my own right to life. I have to violate a burglar's right to liberty to defend my right to property. And so on. There is no right that, in being upheld, does not entail violating some other right. So the issue must be what balance of rights will procure the greatest overall allowance of rights to all [...] http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/01/factual-politics-4.html And finally, when you are well and truly done with roasting someone alive (metaphorically speaking, of course!), you lead the horse to water and show em where ey can go to educate emself more fully, never actually expecting that your roastee will actually avail emself of the opportunity so granted:
Well worth reading, at least as an intro into why naive (or alternately, 'simple'; both used in the technical senses of the word) anarchism doesn't scale past a few dozen people. (Cliff's notes version: Basically, it boils down to economies of scale). Anyways, figured I'd crank up some discussion on a slow weekend. Do try to read the whole series of posts, they're very well written, if a bit harsh on the one guy. [b]Benjamin said...[/b] [i]Social contract theory is mysticism![/i] (ed: toned down the shouting) No it's not. It's scientific fact, fully established by game theory and evolutionary biology. Learn something for a change: read up on the grounding science in Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, ed., Moral Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 53-119 and pp. 143-64 (MIT Press, 2008) and the grounding logic in Ken Binmore's Game Theory and the Social Contract: Vol. 1 (MIT Press, 1994), Vol. 2 (MIT Press, 1998).
—This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.