Libertarianism vs Determinism: Libertarianism Justifies Government

[chris epic]

Plato spoke of shadows: a reality perceived by every individual that is, in theory, only a reflection of reality- reality corrupt by disillusionment and ignorance. If one were to philosophically claim that reality was a series of effects which stemmed from a series of causes, and that every person's actions were exclusively subject to those causes- albeit genetic predisposition, or behavior learned from the environment, one must conclude that any person could never be held accountable for their choices, as their choices were never legitimate choices, but rather shadows from a reality where every choice was decided at or before the very beginning of the universe: the first cause. Ultimately, every effect that follows is determined, sanctified from the liberty of self. Furthermore, having all of us failed to receive this revelation of truth behind these shadows that are substantiated by the unrelenting search of truth or know-it-all through science, the assumption of the first cause that supports every following cause is unable to be tested and therefore remote from substantial.

However, given that determinism is problematic from the assumption of absolute certainty in the cause/effect dynamic, as in general science, experts who champion it will agree that certainty has no place in science, only probability; one must conclude that it is just as probable to be aware of this shadow land, as the majority of people will admit to being consciously aware of their own reality, regardless of an assumed ignorance of its reflection of truth, not truth in itself.

Therefore, in a perceived world of free humans, with the proven necessity of government (from history) to gift, grace, protect, or punish as a result of conscious decision making, ill conscious or well, all must be held accountable for their choices, whether by nurture or nature, where, on a platform of human plurality, all must be self-determined to move themselves through time and space, and be prepared or capable to endure the consequences of their choices, for good or bad, however morally defined, in their culture or civilization.

This is to say that a man, plagued by pain from past emotional injury, cannot rely on his injuries alone to justify any willed contradiction to moral behavior. For if he were to be pardoned on behalf of his environment, and his environment was pardoned on behalf of nature as a construct of predetermined events, then no human, which is from nature, thus apart of the construct, could will within itself restraint, such as discipline, justice, or penal separation, to go about a linear course. This would only cause a natural end to the effect of cause- as such a similar restraint in a human body would cause the body to fail.

As well, a man consciously incapacitated from his ill environment, enough to spawn a irrational judgment that leads to the murder of another individual, is himself contrary to a sound body perpetuated by an event fundamentally proactive, that those who are rational enough to govern others democratically, must separate the individual from others that should be protected from him.

A free person must, with great responsibility, allow himself to be governed in any community that desires social integrity in order to share values of contrived morality best fitting for the promotion of safety, survival, support, relationship, life, and love; and care enough for each other to educate, restrain, detain, rehabilitate, or separate those unfortunates who cannot restrain themselves.

[slingblade]

Wot's all this, then? Chew write this? Wotsit for?

Are you thinking you're libertarian? Really? Or are you just exploring it?




...and is this in the right place? Did you mean Politics?

[slingblade]

Got your email. Must say, I'm extremely impressed! I see now that it's philosophy, so it is in the right place. What interesting ideas!

[zizzybaluba]

Well written, but I'm having trouble seeing what you are arguing against... Anarchy?

[CFLarsen]

Plato spoke of shadows: a reality perceived by every individual that is, in theory, only a reflection of reality- reality corrupt by disillusionment and ignorance. If one were to philosophically claim that reality was a series of effects which stemmed from a series of causes, and that every person's actions were exclusively subject to those causes- albeit genetic predisposition, or behavior learned from the environment, one must conclude that any person could never be held accountable for their choices, as their choices were never legitimate choices, but rather shadows from a reality where every choice was decided at or before the very beginning of the universe: the first cause. Ultimately, every effect that follows is determined, sanctified from the liberty of self. Furthermore, having all of us failed to receive this revelation of truth behind these shadows that are substantiated by the unrelenting search of truth or know-it-all through science, the assumption of the first cause that supports every following cause is unable to be tested and therefore remote from substantial.

However, given that determinism is problematic from the assumption of absolute certainty in the cause/effect dynamic, as in general science, experts who champion it will agree that certainty has no place in science, only probability; one must conclude that it is just as probable to be aware of this shadow land, as the majority of people will admit to being consciously aware of their own reality, regardless of an assumed ignorance of its reflection of truth, not truth in itself.

Therefore, in a perceived world of free humans, with the proven necessity of government (from history) to gift, grace, protect, or punish as a result of conscious decision making, ill conscious or well, all must be held accountable for their choices, whether by nurture or nature, where, on a platform of human plurality, all must be self-determined to move themselves through time and space, and be prepared or capable to endure the consequences of their choices, for good or bad, however morally defined, in their culture or civilization.

This is to say that a man, plagued by pain from past emotional injury, cannot rely on his injuries alone to justify any willed contradiction to moral behavior. For if he were to be pardoned on behalf of his environment, and his environment was pardoned on behalf of nature as a construct of predetermined events, then no human, which is from nature, thus apart of the construct, could will within itself restraint, such as discipline, justice, or penal separation, to go about a linear course. This would only cause a natural end to the effect of cause- as such a similar restraint in a human body would cause the body to fail.

As well, a man consciously incapacitated from his ill environment, enough to spawn a irrational judgment that leads to the murder of another individual, is himself contrary to a sound body perpetuated by an event fundamentally proactive, that those who are rational enough to govern others democratically, must separate the individual from others that should be protected from him.

A free person must, with great responsibility, allow himself to be governed in any community that desires social integrity in order to share values of contrived morality best fitting for the promotion of safety, survival, support, relationship, life, and love; and care enough for each other to educate, restrain, detain, rehabilitate, or separate those unfortunates who cannot restrain themselves.

You need to write in shorter sentences.

Seriously.

[AmateurScientist]

Claus is right.

AS

[CFLarsen]

I usually am. ;)

[CFLarsen]

But, seriously. There is a fine line between taking advantage of perhaps the most eloquent and versatile language in history, and messing it up because you feel you have to be as eloquent as possible.

I'm not sure what the intention is here, but....always think of your audience. Don't be patronizing by using deliberately simplistic words, but don't hump the vocabulary either.

Always ask yourself: What is more important, exhibiting my command of the vocabulary, or my desire to get my meaning through?

[slingblade]

Good advice.

(I know, I know: "It usually is.") :p

[CFLarsen]

...."hump the vocabulary"?

Where did that come from? :D

[Mercutio]

If one were to philosophically claim that reality was a series of effects which stemmed from a series of causes, and that every person's actions were exclusively subject to those causes- albeit genetic predisposition, or behavior learned from the environment, one must conclude that any person could never be held accountable for their choices, as their choices were never legitimate choices, but rather shadows from a reality where every choice was decided at or before the very beginning of the universe: the first cause. [snip]

Therefore, in a perceived world of free humans, with the proven necessity of government (from history) to gift, grace, protect, or punish as a result of conscious decision making, ill conscious or well, all must be held accountable for their choices, whether by nurture or nature, where, on a platform of human plurality, all must be self-determined to move themselves through time and space, and be prepared or capable to endure the consequences of their choices, for good or bad, however morally defined, in their culture or civilization. [snip]
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. Behaviorists, for example, who are by and large determinists, disagree with your analysis. Some, like Baum or Nevin, would disagree wholly with your notion of "free humans" to begin with, but would note that if a determinist view found that a particular behavior could be reduced or eliminated by punishing, then to excuse a behavior as determined would be to free it from the very contingencies that determinists would claim control it! Your view of determinism comes to the very opposite conclusion than what these determinists do!

Here, a more palatable behaviorist for you, not quite as hardcore as Baum or Nevin, but still a very respected name--John Staddon (http://psychweb.psych.duke.edu/department/jers/RESPUN.pdf). The idea is that the purpose of legal punishment is to minimize the total amount of suffering in society, the suffering caused by crime as well as the suffering caused by punishment. The concept is simple: if thievery is punished by amputation, the level of thievery will be low, but the suffering of thieves will be very high, higher perhaps than warranted by the reduction in theft. On the other hand, if murderers go free, the level of murder will be high and the ease of the killers will not be balanced by the suffering of the rest. We may argue about how to measure suffering and how to assess the effect of a given level of legal punishment for a given crime, but the principle, which I call the social view of punishment, seems reasonable enough. It is consistent with the fundamental principle that government exists for the welfare of society as a whole, not for the good of any particular individual. Once they understand the argument, most people seem to agree that the social view of punishment is acceptable, although not, perhaps, the whole story. What people do not seem to realize is that this perfectly reasonable view is not opposed to determinism: it requires determinism.

From an objective point of view -- the only legitimate point of view for science -- "holding a man responsible" for his actions means nothing more than making him subject to punishment if he breaks the law. The social view of punishment assumes that people are sensitive to reward and punishment, that behavior be predictably subject to causal influences. If criminal behavior is predictably deterred by punishment, the justly punished criminal is less likely to disobey the law again, and serves as an example to other potential lawbreakers. This is the only objective justification for punishment. But if behavior were unpredictable and unaffected by "reinforcement contingencies" -- if it were uncaused, in Skinner's caricature of "freedom" -- there would be absolutely no point to punishment or any other form of behavioral control, because it would have no predictable effect. In short, legal responsibility requires behavioral determinism, not the reverse.

[chris epic]

...."hump the vocabulary"?

Where did that come from? :D

I guess it means verbial masterbation- oops, I did it again :D

As far as the run-on sentences go, I have a tendency to do that in my writing. Sometimes I've noticed it can add to the literary spunk of my writing, but other times I have used it inappropriately and losing the audience tends to be the greatest consequence. But as far as the vocabulary, I have been aprehensive before when using my vocabulary the way I do when I write academically, arguementatively, poetically, or philosophically. But I've never heard the complaint of being pretentious. I even asked by english professor if he thought so and he said he didn't see it as being pretentious so that made me feel a little better better. But using words the way I do is a product of the artist in me and the love of words in general that I have (I'm an etymology geek) :o But yeah, in normal conversations, like this one, I don't tend to be so wordy. In the philosophical writing I did, I was attempting to be artistic at the same time.

Cheers

[chris epic]

Well written, but I'm having trouble seeing what you are arguing against... Anarchy?

I used to be an anarchist in high school (no, not a champion of social chaos)

I have been surveying the concept of Free Will and the philosophies of Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism. My intention in the above writing was initially to support Libertarianism and use the necessity of Government as support. I started with a segway that introduced Determinism, reasoned with it through compatiblism, then came to terms with Libertarianism. But I wrote it rather rapidly and was rather impulsive about posting it here without pre-self criticism and revision, although I did notice the run-on sentences were distracting in a few places.

Anyway, I always had a pre-concieved notion that Libertarianism, politically, advocated less government; whereas Libertariansim philosophically advocated more government. But after thinking on that for a while, I realized this was because I was holding these ideas against the current amount of government America has right now.

Then there is the whole metaphysical notion of predetermination or freedom that underlies all three of these philosophies which I find problematic from the scientific incompatibility of metaphysics. So I really didn't want to get into the metahysical issue, I just wanted to try to deal with it in the confines of human awareness.

[CFLarsen]

I used to be an anarchist in high school (no, not a champion of social chaos)

How will anarchism avoid social chaos?

[chris epic]

How will anarchism avoid social chaos?

Well, when I was a naive teenager, I believed in the potential of inner human greatness, I was very idealogical about it (you know, transcendentalist ideas and what not) but today, as far as the importance of anarchy is concerned, I realize that any great change and reorganization of government, or the replacement of governments needs with it the catalyst which is anarchy, or protest through civil disobedience against tyranny- this is more practical and has evidence from history rather than ideological faith for the future.

[CFLarsen]

Well, when I was a naive teenager, I believed in the potential of inner human greatness, I was very idealogical about it (you know, transcendentalist ideas and what not) but today, as far as the importance of anarchy is concerned, I realize that any great change and reorganization of government, or the replacement of governments needs with it the catalyst which is anarchy, or protest through civil disobedience against tyranny- this is more practical and has evidence from history rather than ideological faith for the future.

You still need to write in shorter sentences.

Here's a guideline: After you have written something, read each sentence out aloud. If you run out of breath, the sentence is twice as long as it should be.

Remember: The Full Stop Is Your Friend.

[Francesca R]

Well, when I was a naive teenager, I believed in the potential of inner human greatness, I was very idealogical about it (you know, transcendentalist ideas and what not)So you no longer believe that anarchy will usher in spontaneous social order? Well I would agree.

but today, as far as the importance of anarchy is concerned, I realize that any great change and reorganization of government, or the replacement of governments needs with it the catalyst which is anarchy, or protest through civil disobedience against tyranny- this is more practical and has evidence from history rather than ideological faith for the future.I think you're saying that the effort to avert anarchy (built on a limited brush with it) will pressure beneficial adjustments to social contracts and the preservation of social order. As if societies are "vaccinated" against a full-on attack of anarchy? That has some precedents as you say, but it's walking a fine line to expect such a mechanism to work very well very often.

[chris epic]

I think you're saying that the effort to avert anarchy (built on a limited brush with it) will pressure beneficial adjustments to social contracts and the preservation of social order. As if societies are "vaccinated" against a full-on attack of anarchy? That has some precedents as you say, but it's walking a fine line to expect such a mechanism to work very well very often.

Not necissarily. I'm saying that any time a government has been replaced (and I don't mean democratically through term limits) there has always been an element of anarchy to start the whole thing off. In this way, someone might disagree with my idea of anarchy, but this is a way I have chosen to label the noted "catalyst." i.e. the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (succession is anarchy).

Albeit sometimes there is no conflict or resistance when a nation is established, but an act of throwing out a government, even to make way for a new one, is still anarchy.

In this way, we could see anarchy as fundamentally American at heart, eh?

[Francesca R]

If you mean a coup d'état, I don't call that anarchy. Anarchy rejects the existence of a state. It doesn't run right out and establish a new one. Organised thugocracy maybe . . .

[AmateurScientist]

I guess it means verbial masterbation- oops, I did it again :D

As far as the run-on sentences go, I have a tendency to do that in my writing. Sometimes I've noticed it can add to the literary spunk of my writing, but other times I have used it inappropriately and losing the audience tends to be the greatest consequence. But as far as the vocabulary, I have been aprehensive before when using my vocabulary the way I do when I write academically, arguementatively, poetically, or philosophically. But I've never heard the complaint of being pretentious. I even asked by english professor if he thought so and he said he didn't see it as being pretentious so that made me feel a little better better. But using words the way I do is a product of the artist in me and the love of words in general that I have (I'm an etymology geek) :o But yeah, in normal conversations, like this one, I don't tend to be so wordy. In the philosophical writing I did, I was attempting to be artistic at the same time.

Cheers

Please take this in the vein of constructive criticism, as that is how I intend it. My first suggestion is to run out and pick up a copy of The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White as soon as possible. It's very short and is a terrific manual about grammar and usage. It contains a couple dozen or so excellent rules to write by. My favorite, and one you would do well to heed, is "Omit needless words." Read that a few times and ponder its beauty and succinctness, especially as the rule itself is an exemplar of what it prescribes.

Although brevity itself is often a virtue in writing, above all else, clarity is key. If your message gets lost in the mess of words you put down on paper, then you might as well have not written it at all. The whole point of your writing is to convey a message or theme to the reader. Therefore, not only is it important for you to know your audience (are you writing for your professors, other students, philosophers, girlfriends?), but it is vital that your vocabulary be appropriate to your subject matter as well. You would not want to use flowery poetic language when writing about physics, for instance. When writing about physics, you would want to use the precise terms of art peculiar to physics, and you would want to use them correctly and appropriately. Misusing terms is a terrible sin in writing. Furthermore, you would likely want to use different terms when writing about physics in an introductory level physics textbook than you would when writing a peer-reviewed paper for publishing in a scientific trade publication. When in doubt, remember the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Clear writing is the result of clear thinking. Sometimes, a first draft of a paper will be the result of wandering thoughts strung together very loosely, or perhaps it will be a series of disjointed ideas. Read your rough draft critically and do not be married to your words or structure. Be prepared to reorganize your paper liberally, and get out that red pen and use it judiciously. After a first draft, it is common for a good writer to make an outline from it, and to reorganize the outline substantially before attempting to rewrite the paper. Do not be afraid to rewrite almost from scratch, or from a bare, reorganized outline. Often, your thinking about your material will improve dramatically after reading and re-reading your first or second drafts. As your thinking improves, so will your writing.

I once had a writing professor who said there is no such thing as good writing, only good re-writing. Obviously, his point is that editing is required of even the best of first drafts. He was a wise and experienced writer. A good writer can live by his maxim and rest assured that the simple act of editing and re-writing will almost always result in better writing in the finished product.

OK, that's enough for now; I sound like I'm lecturing. Good luck with it.

AS

[chris epic]

OK, that's enough for now; I sound like I'm lecturing. Good luck with it.

AS
Are you kidding, I'm paying out the ass for an education- nothing wrong with getting it for free- college students should eat that stuff up! ;) thanks, I really appreciate it. Yes, I believe term in a prior english class was "empty words" like instead of saying "My living locale was in an environment not conducive to the vitality of my person" I could just as easily say "I lived in an unhealthy neighborhood" right? Yeah, that hit me hard with as much as I love my vocabulary. But as I go, I'm learning where its approprate and where its not without having to feel like I'm dumbing down my language for a particular audience.

Thanks again for the advice!

[chris epic]

If you mean a coup d'état, I don't call that anarchy. Anarchy rejects the existence of a state. It doesn't run right out and establish a new one. Organised thugocracy maybe . . .

This might be a stretch, but bear with me. I use the term "government" throughout a scale from the establishment of a society, a corporation, a small business, an organization, all the way down to the basic family unit, and even the self. Contrary to your definition, a sustained state of anarchy not only rejects the existence of a state, but does in fact replace it with the government of the self and the basic family unit. Because regardless of how smaller or non-existant the government gets in a society of anarchy, the human beings tendency toward community is fundamental in the very basic necessity of the family and extended family.

Its laughable to say that anarchy prohibits any form of government, but humans beings, animals in general for that matter, RARELY opperate that way. But this isn't to say anarchy isnt possible, just in today's society with the world's population, it doesn't appear to be very practical.

[Francesca R]

This might be a stretch, but bear with me. I use the term "government" throughout a scale from the establishment of a society, a corporation, a small business, an organization, all the way down to the basic family unit, and even the self.OK—but that's not really an accepted definition. Governments have many defining attributes—such as the ability to tax citizens, punish them and a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. By redefining terms you are introducing a great deal of qualification to your earlier expressed views.

Contrary to your definition, a sustained state of anarchy not only rejects the existence of a state, but does in fact replace it with the government of the self and the basic family unit. Because regardless of how smaller or non-existant the government gets in a society of anarchy, the human beings tendency toward community is fundamental in the very basic necessity of the family and extended family.Again it's not my "personal" definition of anarchy—but general usage of the term. Anarchy is absence of government.

Where we agree (stepping aside from definitions) is that pure anarchy is a disequilibrium state (like a vacuum, say) which is apt to be replaced spontaneously by some form of organised rule—mob, warlords, military, dictatorial, autocratic, democratic, . . . whatever.

Its laughable to say that anarchy prohibits any form of government, but humans beings, animals in general for that matter, RARELY opperate that way. But this isn't to say anarchy isnt possible, just in today's society with the world's population, it doesn't appear to be very practical.Anarchy doesn't prohibit anything—it's simply that anarchy is the absence of government. Like atheism is the absence of theism.

[AmateurScientist]

Are you kidding, I'm paying out the ass for an education- nothing wrong with getting it for free- college students should eat that stuff up! ;) thanks, I really appreciate it. Yes, I believe term in a prior english class was "empty words" like instead of saying "My living locale was in an environment not conducive to the vitality of my person" I could just as easily say "I lived in an unhealthy neighborhood" right? Yeah, that hit me hard with as much as I love my vocabulary. But as I go, I'm learning where its approprate and where its not without having to feel like I'm dumbing down my language for a particular audience.

Thanks again for the advice!

You are very welcome.

You're right about simplifying your sentences and getting rid of "empty words." It doesn't make your writing clearer to say in 50 words what you could have in 12. Quite often, the briefer sentence is not only more succinct, but also clearer and more "punchy." A good paragraph needs a little punch, and sometimes you can achieve that by varying your sentence length within a paragraph. I sometimes try to follow a long sentence with a short one or two.

Another thing that occurs to me off the top of my head is to be especially aware of your theme at all times. Your overall paper itself needs a cohesive, well-thought out theme. Everything you write in your paper should be in support of that theme. Anything else is fluff, an irrelevant tangent, or excess. You should begin with a brief introduction, proceed to the body of the paper, and conclude with a brief summary of what you wrote.

Your paragraphs need themes too. Whenever possible, each paragraph should have a thematic opening sentence. The rest of the sentences in your paragraph should follow from that sentence and expound on that idea. It is especially tidy to finish your paragraph with a closing sentence that either restates the opening sentence and ties together all the sentences, or provides a nice segue or transition into your next paragraph.

When you shift from one topic to another in a paper or presentation, it is helpful to your audience to telegraph that you are doing so. The opening sentence in your next paragraph can indicate that you are moving onto another topic, and it serves as a handy milestone marker for your reader that you are shifting gears. I would try to provide you an example, but at the moment I'm on painkillers and I'm not thinking very clearly.

That's enough for now. If this is helpful, let me know, and I'll be happy to provide other ideas or guidance if you like. I can even be a decent editor or proofreader from time to time, my schedule permitting.

AS