Edward Snowden

[Jake]

What do you all think of Edward Snowden?

1. Did he do the right or wrong thing by leaking information about the NSA surveillance program?

2. Did he do the right or wrong thing by fleeing the country?

3. Is the establishment justified in condemning him as a traitor and a coward?

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I want your unbiased opinions before I share my thoughts.

[Darias]

Darias,

Even if you know "1984", you, perhaps, misunderstand what totalitarian dictatorship or communism is.

"Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

This love is the one TRUE love. The true love can't be enforced. People in Russia truly love Putin. People in North Korea Truly love Kin Jon-un.

I have yet to read 1984. Unlike a lot of people, my political philosophy did not begin with a quick read of a fictional novel after Snowden told everyone about PRISM.

And while I won't deny that patriotism is alive and well, I think claiming that the people of Russia and North Korea idolize their leaders leaves out a significantly large number of them. A sadomasochistic relationship can only exist between consenting individuals, all else is abuse and coerced compliance through fear.

Statism creates poverty and death on a massive scale, comparable to religious belief.

Statism? You don't understand history then. Have you ever heard of Lev Gumelev's theory of ethnogenesis? I understand that you just want to pretend to be smart. It is okay. You are smart. Enjoy it. [just saying cause it is against the rules of this forum to say anyone is not so smart, ... right?]

States, empires and those who supported such institutions are responsible for much bloodshed, are they not? Belief in, trust in, and love of state has led to horrible crimes against humanity. Statism is directly analogous to religious belief. God is always portrayed in the most positive of lights even though the Old Testament betrays his character. People blindly believe that God will solve all their problems and take care of them. People believe that God is needed in order for them to be moral and to do good things for one another. Many people also place that same faith and love in the state.

I have not heard of Gumelev's theory. And you have obviously never heard of voluntaryism. That's no excuse to flirt with the threat of insult.

As a voluntaryist, I see the reduction of the initiation of force in whatever form it may take as the goal. Classlessness and the elimination of monetary incentive are not my goals, and I believe that both are unrealistic and have stagnating effects on the society that attempts those things.

But you believe that corporations are bad, don't you? Would you try to paint a picture of the world without corporations and without GOVERNMENT?

It's not that I don't think corporations can do good things; they can, as can the state. It's the means by which they do those things which bothers me. CEOs hide behind the legal protections of the state in order to create an artificial advantage over their competitors in the market place. A free market doesn't allow for such things. You may be confusing businesses with corporations and free market with state capitalism, as many socialists often do. There are extreme distinctions between the two. A world without states would mean a world without corporations, but it would not mean a world without trade, voluntary exchange, and services society relies on. It just means you would not have a violent coercive monopoly providing those essential services, like security, insurance, healthcare, education, etc.

Market anarchy minimizes the income inequality that must always come from corporatism. Market anarchy provides the services that the state currently monopolizes.

The first service that anarchy provides will be krysha (cover), aka racket.

You are confusing anarchy, the absence of states, with revolts, vandalism, and Molotov cocktails. Much like the Atheism+ people, who seek to add baggage to the definition of atheism, simply defined as the lack of belief in gods, you possess a common misconception of anarchy.

And anarchy of course allows for socialist groups to voluntarily experiment and fail.

Anarchy does not provide a field for voluntarism. The only field it provides is that for the field of opportunism. You need a social contract (AKA GOVERNMENT) in order to have voluntarism.

You obviously don't know what voluntaryism is. It's not volunteering. It's the philosophical view that human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. States are not institutions that exist by the consent of the people. States maintain their existence by stealing from people; if they resist, they go to jail. States exist because people comply, and because people are taught that charity and duty is the same thing as having your money taken from you, lest you be put away somewhere.

I did not sign a social contract. The founding fathers made it up and gave themselves the power to tax and rule over the colonists who fought a war because they did not want to be taxed and ruled over. Contracts do not bind over generations even if everyone in America signed up for the Constitution at one point. Have a listen to Lysander Spooner for more on why social contract theory is a farce.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

I haven't heard of voluntarism existing in societies with a weak governments. Would you provide examples?

Voluntaryism is a philosophy that logically leads to anarchy of some kind. Societies with minimal governments, such as that which was created in the US, did not exist in an anarcho-capitalistic environment. Asking me to provide examples of anarcho-capitalistic societies to you now, is like you asking a suffragette to provide you with an historic example of a successful thriving society that embraced the female vote--as if that was a valid argument against the morality and feasibility of equal rights for women.

When I say that business owners would forced to pay out of pocket lest their business goes under and they be imprisoned, sued, or become outcast -- I do not mean to imply the state would be doing those things. If my neighbor dumps oil into his yard and it affects the quality of my drinking water, I, along with the rest of the community, can sue him for damages. The same principles would apply in a stateless society.

There is NO common principle by which you can sue in a stateless society. You seem to be a typical delusional American boy. For a simple case study, how about all your neighbors put dirt in your backyard? Who would you make a party with to sue them?

A stateless society is not a lawless one. Common law has existed for quite a long time. People could have insurance agencies and --as Molyneux calls them-- Dispute Resolution Organizations, or DROs. If my neighbor causes damage to my property, my insurance company could sue his for damages. If his insurance company denies their client's wrongdoing, my insurance company could appeal to a DRO. DROs would be third party arbiters. Everything is based on namesake and by extension profit, so bias and unfair arbitration would be a death sentence for that company.

I just believe that you don't need theft (taxation)

taxation is not theft, and your personal opinion does not really count here, sorry.

Well, it's not a personal theory. The idea of taxation as theft is common among economist circles. The reason why it meets the definition of theft is because force is used to get it. Taxation is not voluntary, as though it were a charity that depended on your morality. Taxation is mandatory and if you don't pay you will eventually be met with a no-knock warrant.

Your rebuttal amounts to: "nuh-uh! Shut up!" You can't explain why taxation isn't theft because you've probably never heard of it being characterized that way. But it can't be voluntary because you don't have a choice to opt out, in the same manner that you can't run away if you're being robbed at gunpoint. And when the thief thanks you for your charity, it doesn't transform the crime into a charitable act; likewise no one would call rape consensual just because a rapist may claim his victim enjoyed it.

and slavery (government solutions)

slavery? are you okay? You don't seem to have a clue of what slavery is. In the US, what you say should be a racially offensive statement, but in the rest of the world it is just a typical [white] american unintelligent pseudo-political gibberish.

There's nothing like accusations of racism, followed by assumptions and generalizations.

I mentioned slavery specifically because it was a government institution at one point; i.e., slavery was used by Spanish rulers to obtain wealth. A common objection to market anarchism is the question "who would build the roads?" which implies the false assumption that something cannot be done unless the government does it.

The question "who will pick the cotton" to an 18th century abolitionist would not invalidate his argument that slavery is immoral, even if he didn't have visions of the future where black men were free of their chains, even if he couldn't cite a single civilization in ancient times that was not built on the back of slaves!

I don't believe that government solutions, like slavery, are valid. I think they are immoral because such programs require taxation to exist. I think voluntary organizations from the market are better, and that solutions can be had without institutional state violence.

Darias, I see you write here a lot. Is it because your writings are not accepted anywhere else but at this forum? If so, what does it tell us about you? About this forum? Otseng?

I debate here because this is the only forum I have ever really participated in. I don't see the point in going to a political subreddit to just agree with everyone who agrees with me. Confirmation bias is boring because there is no debate to be had.

I imagine that my opinions tell you a great deal about my views. My opinions don't really speak for this forum or for Otseng, and neither do anyone else's for that matter. Apart from trolling, what exactly is your point here?

[100%atheist]

...

Darias,

I now understand that pretty much everything you write here about your political views is just your fantasy. In such fantasy, you blame evil government for everything bad in the world and you idealize individuals who will magically establish a government-free Utopia if let play alone. Unfortunately for your Utopia, it is incompatible with historic experience and human psychology. However, you might give it a try. Write a book or something...

[Darias]

Darias,

I now understand that pretty much everything you write here about your political views is just your fantasy. In such fantasy, you blame evil government for everything bad in the world and you idealize individuals who will magically establish a government-free Utopia if let play alone. Unfortunately for your Utopia, it is incompatible with historic experience and human psychology. However, you might give it a try. Write a book or something...

This is a complete straw man. Your advice for me is nothing but an appeal to tradition.

I view statism in the same light as religious belief. I do not deny that religious and government institutions have the capacity to do good. But it is of my opinion that religious belief tends to do more harm than good, and I feel the exact same way about statism.

I would like to live to see a world without states the same way that I would like to one day be able to see a world without religions. But I have no intentions of bringing these things about by force, as I believe they must be given up voluntarily. I also have no expectation of seeing either one of these come about even long after I am dead -- this is not because I have any doubts on the morality and logic of my position, but because there are just so many indoctrinated people everywhere; their children are likewise indoctrinated by them, and so on.

Your rebuttal, characterizing my view of the state as a utopic fantasy, could be said of every advance that came before. There are religious people think atheists live in lala land for their opinions on belief. All the people who believed that woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, and homosexual relationships could never catch on in society have used an argument similar to yours.

[100%atheist]

Darias,

I now understand that pretty much everything you write here about your political views is just your fantasy. In such fantasy, you blame evil government for everything bad in the world and you idealize individuals who will magically establish a government-free Utopia if let play alone. Unfortunately for your Utopia, it is incompatible with historic experience and human psychology. However, you might give it a try. Write a book or something...

This is a complete straw man. Your advice for me is nothing but an appeal to tradition.

I view statism in the same light as religious belief. I do not deny that religious and government institutions have the capacity to do good. But it is of my opinion that religious belief tends to do more harm than good, and I feel the exact same way about statism.

I would like to live to see a world without states the same way that I would like to one day be able to see a world without religions. But I have no intentions of bringing these things about by force, as I believe they must be given up voluntarily. I also have no expectation of seeing either one of these come about even long after I am dead -- this is not because I have any doubts on the morality and logic of my position, but because there are just so many indoctrinated people everywhere; their children are likewise indoctrinated by them, and so on.

Your rebuttal, characterizing my view of the state as a utopic fantasy, could be said of every advance that came before. There are religious people think atheists live in lala land for their opinions on belief. All the people who believed that woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, and homosexual relationships could never catch on in society have used an argument similar to yours.

There are quite a few differences between Utopia and and Societal Changes. Utopia is something unprecedented not only as a whole construct but even most parts of it are unprecedented. There had been matriarchal societies, there are societies in which homosexuality is a norm historically. A society without any form of government is unprecedented and I have yet to see what is an advantage of such a society. I believe that a society without a government is a step back for humanity. You may disagree and we can spend all our lives arguing, but these conversations are empty and unlikely to lead to anything conclusive or interesting.

Also, you claim you intend no coercion as a means of bringing about your societal "advance". However, you are quite clearly characterize the government as an illegal agent (a thief, etc.). By doing so, you appeal to morality of people for whom theft is an immoral act, which must be punished. Hence, your words amount to a act of sedition.

Edit:
By the way, you also romanticized the early US government and how small and non-invasive it was. I just looked up to some historical facts which suggest quite the opposite:
"In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). "

[Darias]

There are quite a few differences between Utopia and and Societal Changes. Utopia is something unprecedented not only as a whole construct but even most parts of it are unprecedented.

You were the first to interject utopia into this discussion; my political philosophy does not require utopia to function, nor does it promise such a thing.

And something which is unprecedented is not automatically utopic. Discoveries and inventions are usually unprecedented, but they don't transform the earth into Eden by any means. It is not the case that "there is nothing new under the sun."

There had been matriarchal societies, there are societies in which homosexuality is a norm historically.

I am aware of those things, but the common knowledge of the day was that men rule and that homosexuality destroys nations, thanks largely to religious dogma. Someone arguing against equality for women might have been completely oblivious to the Aka tribe's matriarchy; it is also likely that suffragists did not know about the tribe either. But the point still stands that the suffragists were morally correct, while their opponents rejected reason in the name of tradition. Your support of statism is no different, because logical fallacies is all you have presented in defense of your views.

A society without any form of government is unprecedented...

While I can't recall a society that has practiced market anarchism on a large scale, you are quite mistaken on this issue. Of course without citing any specific examples, anyone can clearly reason that the state did not always exist. Your claim is as ridiculous as the suggestion that shortly after being created, Adam rose and preceded to recite the pledge of allegiance.

In order for your claim to be accepted, one must have an extremely broad definition of the state, as to equate it with society or even families. This of course is as ridiculous as believing that morality and civilization cannot be distinguished from religious belief.

But of course, there are clear examples of functioning societies with laws that did not have a government. I mentioned the Aka tribe as being an example of a matriarchal society, where the women hunt and the men raise the children; so in keeping with that theme, an example of an anarchistic society in the past is ancient Ireland. This is a more legible transcription of page 3 of this pdf article, written by Joseph R. Peden, a history professor at City University of New York.

Some claim that ancient Ireland was more of an anarcho-communistic society than a libertarian one, but in this other article Peden claims that Gaelic Irish communities respected property rights.

Either way, it was clearly stateless. There is a precedent for societies without states.

Of course this Irish society was conquered, but you do not judge the merits, morality, or functionality of a society based on it's ability to resist oppression; otherwise, Nazi Germanic culture would be superior solely based on its ability to conquer its neighbors--a ridiculous conclusion no less.

and I have yet to see what is an advantage of such a society.

It is quite easy to imagine the advantages. If you ask believers to imagine a world without Christianity, they may cringe and attempt to cite every good thing that they claim resulted from that belief system. If you value the existence of the Vatican and all the religiously inspired works of art during the Renaissance, and if you value all the missionary hospitals that have been built because of Christian charity -- then you can easily overlook all the evils committed for the sake of Christian dogmas. Could the world have been better off without crusades, conquests, and inquisitions at the expense of a palace for rich popes to live in? Yes. And it is not as though I am asking you to choose between respecting human life and the existence of shiny, sparkly testaments to human pride--even though the moral choice is quite clear. It is difficult for people to imagine a world without a Vatican because they fail to see what else could have taken its place.

[center][youtube][/youtube] [/center]

The same concept applies in economics concerning public works.

A bridge is built [. . . .] But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most [. . . .]

The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer.

Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

The same reasoning applies, of course, to ever other form of public work.

Not to single out the Italian Peninsula, but had things been different, the Roman Colosseum (built via slave labor) and the Vatican would not be missed.

I believe that a society without a government is a step back for humanity. You may disagree and we can spend all our lives arguing, but these conversations are empty and unlikely to lead to anything conclusive or interesting.

In a debate, it is incumbent on the person making the claim to provide evidence. I am aware of your belief in the necessity and benevolence of the state, but I find your reasons and evidence extremely lacking. Of course we can agree to disagree, but that doesn't justify your faith claim. If you don't find this discussions interesting, speak for yourself. I quite enjoy them. I think it's a refreshing escape from the stereotypical atheist/believer divide. Not all atheists have the same opinions, and I find it just as hypocritical for an atheist to favor statism as an atheist who believes in homeopathy. What can I say? Not all atheists are consistent in their skepticism.

[center]
[/center]

Also, you claim you intend no coercion as a means of bringing about your societal "advance". However, you are quite clearly characterize the government as an illegal agent (a thief, etc.). By doing so, you appeal to morality of people for whom theft is an immoral act, which must be punished. Hence, your words amount to a act of sedition.

My stance on taxation as theft is both a factual and moral declaration. However, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't pay their taxes, given the fact that I don't want to be liable for any compromise of their liberties. Just because segregation was evil, it didn't warrant firebombing a pubic school in the 60s.

I do believe that people should exercise their right to civil disobedience if they want. However, this is only effective on a massive scale when the resulting economic stagnation forces politicians to change their policies to appease the masses and restore their productivity. After all, the state is parasitical in nature; controlling the public via force is very costly, and so when the costs outweigh the benefits, politicians will suddenly express deep concern for your rights.

I don't think I am an agorist. I think voting could improve things only if enough people are informed or upset about a loss of their liberties. In general, most people are not informed because they have lives and time is money and family. This means uninformed politicians make it into office. As a result I don't have much faith in the practice of voting, until more people are informed. I normally wouldn't waste my time voting, but if an extreme authoritarian was to run for office, I'd be sure to vote against him. This is because for practical purposes, less tyranny is preferable to more, even if it isn't truly freedom. So I believe that reform is possible, but the less informed people are, the less likely it will be successful. Yet, I still find a lot of common ground with both proponents of agorism, as well as minarchists.

Just for the sake of analogy, a world without radical Islamic doctrines is preferable to our own, even if moderate beliefs tarry on. A world without religious belief would be preferable to that, but I'm not going to refuse to work with moderates for idealism's sake--because that would probably lead to more radical incarnations of faith. As an aside, there are a number of religious voluntaryists with whom I have much more in common than socialist atheists. Unlike the state, at least religious belief can be voluntarily practiced, without coercion or force.

The sedition acts were repealed, so my liberty to criticize the state's foreign policy is not at risk. Reinstating these acts, as authoritarian Gingrich had proposed to do, would not be in the state's best interest because there is no shortage of critics of American action oversees. The state would have to spend a lot of resources enforcing fines and rounding up dissenters, many of whom are armed; economic activity would slow. People would make less money and pay less taxes as a result, so this is largely why such acts are no longer in existence. Sometimes it's in the state's best interest to maintain the limited freedoms we do have. It's not like petitions to Whitehouse.gov pose any threat to the state's ability to advance the policies that it wants to carry out. Policies that are secretive are the best kinds of policies because no one can get mad about what they are ignorant of. Happy and complacent subjects are so much more productive. This country is a tax farm, as all states are. And we are the free-range livestock.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

By the way, you also romanticized the early US government and how small and non-invasive it was. I just looked up to some historical facts which suggest quite the opposite:
"In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). "

When the US was first created, it was a minarchical organization.

In some respects society in early American history was more economically free, but in many other areas, they were not. Yours is a perfect example of that. The founders became hypocrites when power was given to them, by their own decree.

Any liberties--once expressed in the bill of rights as positive rights for white males only--that were respected by the ruling classes were only done so because they lacked the power to curtail them. The 4th amendment was once respected, except for some cases of wartime. Now this right is never respected due to the fact that people are either ignorant of PRISM or accept the supposed "need" for such a program, in addition to the powerful technological capabilities/economic resources of the state.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 64 by Darias]

You seem to accept everything this Stefan Molyneux guy espouses without skepticism.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 65 by help3434]

No, actually. There are a lot of issues I disagree with him on. I question his stance on voting, and who one should associate themselves with. Yet, I cite his videos because I think people would rather listen than read a bunch of articles. He has an eloquent way of phrasing things and I find his arguments compelling.

If a lot of my ideas correlate with his, it's not because I watch him dogmatically; in fact I watch progressive channels more frequently. My philosophy about the state is not something that is new. If you saw my earlier posts you would know that. I try to make references to a lot of different economists and philosophers.

If you can bring an argument against the ideas I present, please do. No one else here seems to want to cite sources or avoid fallacies. If you don't like the bald guy's personality, that's one thing, but that says nothing about the legitimacy of the arguments I have presented.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 64 by Darias]

Darias,

I do not like many things that governments do. I would be somewhat interested in a discussion of possible changes. Unfortunately, I have nothing to support the discussion of some hypothetical society without government, the society that is unlikely to come to fruition ever. And by the way, you still didn't describe me the society that you are talking about. I understand that one of its advantages will be that there will be no state religion. Fine. We have quite a few non religious societies right now. What are the other advantages?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 66 by Darias]

Sorry. I was annoyed that you said the 100% was not skeptical of statism when he was expressing skepticism of anarchy. I should have said that. Why would you want competing law systems, private police and private courts? That sounds crazy.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by Jake]

Snowden did the right thing. For the naysayers who think he could have caused national security issues, they are wrong. Al Qaeda doesn't work via email or telephone. The Taliban doesn't either. They are not stupid. The NSA is in direct violation of the 4th amendment but you don't see them getting prosecuted. They have searched and seized millions of people without warrant. Regardless of national security, violating our rights is the issue here. Not only did they violate our rights, they violated our trust.