What happened to Stefan Molyneux?

[helmuth_hubener]

security still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the Ferguson effect? Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

It has more, nay all, to do with the temperament and culture of the people. The world really contains virtually no security nor safeguards against crime. Civilization is a wide-open candy store. Oh yes, we make token shows of defense against certain crimes, mostly against theft by putting locks on things. But how defended are any of us against murder? Murder is a much more serious crime. Your car may have a security system protecting it somewhat from theft. But what devices do you have on you as a murder-prevention? If someone were to come up behind your back and shoot you, what would happen? I'll tell you: you will die*. That's it! You had implemented no security measures against that possibility whatsoever.

So how come there's more theft than murder? Ponder that.

If even 5% of the population decided "forget the rules, all rules, I'm a gangsta and gangstas gonna spree" that would be the end of civilization. Nothing would be able to operate as it does today any longer.

So crime-ridden places, like Ferguson, it's a result of the temperament, upraising (lack thereof), genetics, and intelligence (lack thereof) of the people, and then temperamental network effects.

Events, such as a withdrawal of police, can activate a network effect and exacerbate the problem. If consequences for armed robbery suddenly plummet to negligible levels due to a decision to withdraw from the area and stop enforcing laws against armed robbery, then that behavior will increase in short order, due to the bad character of the people. In another location, however, the withdrawal of the police might actually have a salutary effect, due to the good character of the people. For in addition to increasing consequences for real crime -- that is, for enforcing real laws, which, we will all admit, police do do -- police also often have a symbiotic relationship with the criminal element, most especially due to the drug war. In this, their ubiquitous presence and enforcement actions actually perversely increase the dangerousness and criminality of a neighborhood.

Anyway, it's a complicated situation. There are instances where police departments have been on strike or otherwise indisposed, and when it's happened in places with somewhat better quality people the crime rate has not always gone up. Civilization's lack of crime is not, in the end, dependent upon enforcement of laws, whether by monopolists or market participants. It is a fragile thing entirely dependent upon the temperament of the people. The quality of the people. Which, allow me to ominously note: is plummeting.

* Assuming adequate caliber and organ-targeting.

 

[silverhandorder]

You should have stopped at the first sentence. By the way, wtf happened to you? Did you get a head injury or something? I don't remember you being this ...er...obtuse.

I got smarter that's what happened.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I got smarter that's what happened.

Is that what the kids call that nowadays? LMFAO!!!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Civilization's lack of crime is not, in the end, dependent upon enforcement of laws, whether by monopolists or market participants. It is a fragile thing entirely dependent upon the temperament of the people. The quality of the people. Which, allow me to ominously note: is plummeting.

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter.

2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime.

 

[dannno]

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter.

2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime.

Really???? Are you actually trying to make those arguments or what is going on here? I hope not..

Instead of state power reducing crime, which is retarded (look at HH's last post), how about technology has created an environment where we have virtually unlimited resources (or, at least enough to feed and clothe and house 99.9% of the population).

So there is less need to commit crime - however - people have gotten "worse" in the sense that families are less stable, people are on all kinds of prescription meds and there is a lot of disfunction.

A major reason this has happened is because of the welfare state, if you actually listened to Stef you would understand better how the r vs. K mating strategy works and why welfare has caused so many problems.

One COULD argue that crime has gone down because of welfare, but if you look at places where people are predominantly on welfare and tried to make that argument you would look like a retard. So once again, you have to consider how much technology has increased our standard of living in the last 50-100 years and what if I told you that crime would have gone down even more and we would have a much more orderly, functional society if we were free and didn't have a welfare state because the standard of living would have increased even more, and you wouldn't have large swaths of the population stuck in a disfunctional environment?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Really???? Are you actually trying to make those arguments or what is going on here? I hope not..

Yes, I am in fact making the arguments I'm making...

Instead of state power reducing crime, which is retarded (look at HH's last post), how about technology has created an environment where we have virtually unlimited resources (or, at least enough to feed and clothe and house 99.9% of the population).

Wealth is also a major factor, I agree.

It is, however, retarded to suggest that state power does not reduce crime.

Continual, pretty warfare is endemic in stateless or weak-state societies.

This ends only when the state becomes strong enough to suppress it.

...which is another way of saying that the war ends only when someone finally, definitively wins.

what if I told you that crime would have gone down even more and we would have a much more orderly, functional society if we were free and didn't have a welfare state because the standard of living would have increased even more, and you wouldn't have large swaths of the population stuck in a disfunctional environment?

I would agree.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter.

Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal. Other than the people who are slaughtered or robbed by it. The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

You really should look into this Biohistory stuff, 3.0. You'd love it. Get the book. Plus study up on r vs. K strategies. Actually, first read Hoppe's Short History of Man. Totally pro-monarchy, and I know you're all about that. It'll prime your intellectual gears up for Biohistory.

2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime.

Point A to keep in mind when deftly but flippantly drawing these sweeping conclusions of yours: our "historically" is extremely limited and spotty. What was the crime rate in Rome 120 BC vs. 320 BC? Point B is new information you were not aware of: Willingness to accept large, powerful polities seems to increase as C increases. Naturally there would be a correlation, then, between large states and virtually everything good in civilization. But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

 

[Danke]

Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal. Other than the people who are slaughtered or robbed by it. The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

You really should look into this Biohistory stuff, 3.0. You'd love it. Get the book. Plus study up on r vs. K strategies. Actually, first read Hoppe's Short History of Man. Totally pro-monarchy, and I know you're all about that. It'll prime your intellectual gears up for Biohistory.

Point A to keep in mind when deftly but flippantly drawing these sweeping conclusions of yours: our "historically" is extremely limited and spotty. What was the crime rate in Rome 120 BC vs. 320 BC? Point B is new information you were not aware of: Willingness to accept large, powerful polities seems to increase as C increases. Naturally there would be a correlation, then, between large states and virtually everything good in civilization. But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

What are the operational definitions of V and C?

Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?

Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal.

I agree.

The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

And it certainly won't be happening as a result of rising crime rates, especially as crime rates (violent, at least) are near historical lows.

But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

I suspect you're defining both C and civilization as "diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success."

In other words, you're making a stipulative definition, not explaining a causal relationship.

....but I'll await your operational definition of C and V (throw in r and k and other other like variable while you're at it).

 

[idiom]

people have gotten "worse" in the sense that families are less stable, people are on all kinds of prescription meds and there is a lot of disfunction.

People and society are just adapting to change. As individuals become more productive and self reliant the need for large extended families gets much smaller. Why build an inter-generational homestead when its more productive to move state every 3 months and rent?

The older conceptions work for farmers and serfs, but one must compete and be efficient now.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?

I'll make a reader's digest for ya if I have time. ~hugs~

 

[idiom]

Yes, yes, right-o. Well-expressed. You have explained your line of thinking on this before, though, repeatedly. You and I, we've been around here a long time, idiom! So I already understand all that. I understand your criticisms of other people's ideas of liberty. But what I am interested in is what your conception of liberty is.

Still working on that. I am still getting done being dissatisfied with various An-Cap thinkers. I am very much not satisfied with the NAP concepts as they tend towards protecting only specific classes of liberty, while not actually doing anything to restrict the growth of state-like entities.

I am currently revisiting Rand and various British thinkers before trying to work something up.

I do know that lightweight governments are historically plausible. I also know that most of the tangible infringements on my liberty currently come not from my government but from that of the United States.

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies, and aggression outside of direct hard property damage. It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

I do know that anything starts with "OMG I don't want to pay taxes! Its not fair! its a gun to my head" probably ends up replacing it with taxation that is just as unavoidable. Where you live is voluntary and paying taxation is voluntary. Denying those is denying reality. Philosophies founded in that won't get anywhere.

I also assume that freehold land ownership just means an indefinite lease. Even if your lease payments are zero unless you are running your own social system then it works out the same way.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

People and society are just adapting to change. As individuals become more productive and self reliant the need for large extended families gets much smaller. Why build an inter-generational homestead when its more productive to move state every 3 months and rent?

The older conceptions work for farmers and serfs, but one must compete and be efficient now.

Because it's some folks' subjective preference to have real property for any of a number of reasons-captial to borrow against, for example. You won't get that renting. Value is subjective and often not measured in dollar/currency prices or determined by market forces.

 

[idiom]

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?

He just called you a bunch of cucks. Basically.

 

[idiom]

Because it's some folks' subjective preference to have real property for any of a number of reasons-captial to borrow against, for example. You won't get that renting. Value is subjective and often not measured in dollar/currency prices or determined by market forces.

Market forces are determined by subjective valuations.

Home ownership has a lot of perks, but pretty much none of them are economic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Market forces are determined by subjective valuations.

Yup. Didn't say otherwise.

Home ownership has a lot of perks, but pretty much none of them are economic.

You don't think borrowing against the home is an economic perk? Or potentially gaining money (that is, increased borrowing power) during boom cycles? I guess we think of "economic benefits" differently. ~shrugs~

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

All ethical systems necessarily begin with unproved assumptions: is-ought problem, you know.

So it can't be that you object to ethical assumptions as such, unless you're a nihilist.

It must be that you object to the specific assumptions underlying libertarianism.

Which assumptions, and why?

It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies

No libertarian AFAIK (including Rothbard) has ever actually denied the existence of natural monopolies.

Our position is that they're very rare, and in any event governmental interference to prevent them is not an improvement.

and aggression outside of direct hard property damage

Such as?

It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

Not sure what you mean...

As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

Again, not sure what you mean...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What did he just say?

We're all doomed.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What are the operational definitions of V and C?

You didn't look them up? Where's your intellectual curiosity? Jim Penman, Biohistory.

Both C and V are sets of physiological attributes in humans (and other mammals) expressing and detectable in blood tests and hormone levels.

That's the "bio" part of "Biohistory".

What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?

As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

I suspect you're defining both C and civilization as "diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success."

In other words, you're making a stipulative definition, not explaining a causal relationship.

Do you really think so lowly of me? Come on.

What is the point you're trying to make here, anyway? You seem as though you're grasping for something to pounce on to contradict, but, like Danke, haven't been able to quite figure out what I'm on about. You just sense you want to disagree with it. Right?

Do you have any sincere interest in understanding my ideas on these matters?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

In that case, your project is doomed before it even begins. Nihilism rejects all values as useless and/or meaningless (not just "hodgepodge" ones, or "western" ones, or "word of God" ones, or etc.). If you really intend to start from the position that there cannot be any useful and/or meaningful values (which would, of course, include any theory of liberty), then what's the point?

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and you actually intended to convey that you aim to start from a "blank page" without any preconceptions or apriorisms. If so, then this is also doomed to fail. Any entries you might write upon your (supposed) tabula rasa are going to have been filtered through your conscious and unconscious judgements about what is and isn't relevant to your purpose. (You have already explicitly announced your disdain for "hodgepodge" westernisms, for example - and your characterizations of Randian and Rothbardian precepts as being insufficiently "fluid" or "generous" are gravid with implied presuppositions.)

Theory always precedes analysis - and in the limit, axiomatic assumptions are as inescapable as they are unprovable.