I see the argument for some leniency in regards to tempers flaring in political discussion, but to that end I will make two remarks:

1. Those who think they're tough enough to be dishing it out should be prepared to recieve, moderator or no.

2. There can be no double standard - no skewed application of this principle in favor of more accepted opinions over others.

And at the same time, while I think some inflamation is understandable, I think it is in every context undesirable. This is a philosophy forum after all, and not some public square where we're throwing rotten vegetables at each other.

Personally I think moderators should be exempt from this, and should be expected to behave properly no matter what thread they post on. This is simply because impartial, fair exercise of authority and emotion do not mix, at all. It reflects badly not only on themselves, but on TPF as a whole, and it will quickly create the impression of biased moderation.

Anyhow, that's all I have to say about it. No need to spend pages discussing a single removed post, I'm sure you'll agree.

However, it's the implications I find worrying.

I hear what you are saying, but I believe such behavior should be called out and challenged publicly, not in some forgotten and invisible corner of this forum.

Moderators should be expected to act with a degree of impartiality and proper conduct.

Additionally, I find it hard to see how you characterize my (well-deserved) poke at Xtrix as a 'clear insult', and see no issue with a page-long beatdown he launched at another poster.

Thanks for sticking up for me . :up:

And I agree with you fully - to launch an angry, highly disrespectful rant on another poster and then to delete messages that confront you with your behavior is clearly applying a double standard, and unfair.


I don't see why my participation in that thread has anything to do with calling moderators out on disrespectful behavior. I do follow that thread and have posted on it more than once, but I'd call out this type of behavior even if I hadn't.

And my remark was pretty tame. A little tongue-in-check holding up a mirror at our friend here.

Perhaps his inability to fathom @god must be an atheist's ego goes a long way in explaining his massive blind spot for his own. :snicker:


I'm just trying to do my part to stop this forum from degenerating into a new adaption of Lord of the Flies.

I appreciate the kind words.

Sounds like regular ol' racism/sexism to me.

What good would it do you know that someone is on the Asperger’s spectrum? — Joshs

I'd argue it wouldn't do much good to make assumptions about a person about which all one knows is that they have Asperger's either. All it requires is to delay judgement until after one has met the person, because then one has met the true person, and not a generalized image in one's mind.

But lets for a minute assume that this person indeed has Asperger's, so the bit of information we know about this person is accurate. That only gives us a very small piece of specific information about this person. It's a clinical diagnosis, and nothing more. Does it give us any real insight into the true nature of this person? No.

Similarly, biological sex gives us some information, but again does it give any real insight?

Gay men and women, myself included , can profoundly benefit from learning that certain ways of acting that alienated us from heterosexual peers when we were growing up , that made us feel different and freakish, were not unique to us, and that there was a community where we could feel normal. — Joshs

I don't know anything about that, sorry.

Just knowing that the person you are about to meet is gay may not make any difference to you in getting to know them, but what if you have had encounters with men who acted in ways that were extremely flamboyant and effeminate? And let’s say that this made you angry and disgusted , because you assumed that they were putting on a deliberate act that was childish or silly? I know a number of people like this. — Joshs

That's exactly the issue, isn't it? It's the other side of the same coin.

Usually generalizations are pretty unhelpful in personal interaction, but sometimes they can be downright destructive.

To understand that there is an inborn perceptual-affective style that can account for hyper-femininity in men can make a huge difference in one’s attitude toward someone who one assumes is ‘putting on an act’. It also makes one really that pen’s own personality involves it’s own gender style. that pervades every aspect of one’s social dealings. Knowing this about oneself can allow one to build a bridge between one’s own style and that of someone with a very different inborn gender. But denying that there is such a thing as inborn perceptual-affective gender style, or insisting that all forms of gender behavior are socially constructed as some do, makes it impossible for one to build that bridge. One misses the overarching pattern organizing the particulars of inborn gender behavior and treats every action as arbitrary and conditioned by peers — Joshs

I don't quite understand your point.

If through interaction with a person one recognizes patterns, I don't see what that has to do with identity labels and generalizations. Surely it wouldn't be right to assume those patterns exist before one has met the person? Again, it seems to me the true nature of someone can only be explored through real interaction, and not through the generalized images which make up identities.

We know valuable aspects of their style of approaching the world that allow us to engage with them in more intimate ways than we could have otherwise. This is precisely why, as a gay man , I have always found myself gravitating to other gay men , not because of sexual attraction, but because of a common affective-perceptual ‘style’. — Joshs

I disagree.

I will insist that if all I know about someone was the fact that they were gay, I would still know very little about the actual person.

This doesn’t deprive me of my ability to to relate to many other kinds of groups, and it is not a narrow pigeonholing of people. — Joshs

Well, this isn't me throwing an accusation at you, so don't take any of this personal.

I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency which is almost the norm for human interaction (but no less problematic).

Suppose for example that I am going to meet a man, and all I know about them is that they are gay.

What good would it do to assume they have a particular sort of style, as you say, without ever having met the person?

Are there no robust , relatively stable and consistent. aspects of personality style that we carry with us our whole lives? Could we say that Asperger’s is a kind of personality style( as opposed to a disorder or pathology , a characterization many strongly oppose). Or Wilson’s syndrome, which has a cluster of personality traits associated with it, such as extroversion and musicality?

So why not look at gender , or at least the inborn brain-wired aspects of gender as robust personality features? — Joshs

I think this is a very alluring trap to fall into, but my answer would be 'no'.

Let us suppose all we know about someone is their gender (or their nationality, or that they suffer from some mental quirk, etc.).

What can we really say we now know about this person in regards of who they are as a person?

Nothing!

Of course, we're invited to make a whole slew of generalizations, probably based on statistical probabilities, but those have no use in the context of the unique individual we are considering.

That's really all these labels provide us with - generalizations (that is to say, inaccurate simplifications of reality). Useful in some contexts, but not on the level of the personal.

The crudest way of putting it, is that identity is one of the many masks of the ego, and illusory. Gender is just one of the many attributes we use to dress up this image of ourselves in our mind. Nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, favorite football team, etc. All essentially made up, except for perhaps minor biological factors which are generally meaningless.

It's an attempt at self-discovery by trying to explain the self through external means. It attempts to discover the self by connecting to a collective, and therefore fundamentally misses its mark.

The easiest would be for us to do away with the nasty thing altogether, and abandon these efforts to create a surrogate self, and accept only the real thing. Sadly, it seems the drive for self-definition is stronger than our sense of reason.

The real conundrum seems to elude our socialists.

It is very easy to vilify the other side if one believes the choice is between the socialist heaven and the liberal hell. After all, how could one consciously choose hell over heaven?

However, Nirvana, dear socialists, is not for this world, and our choice is not between heaven and hell. Our choices pertain to the limbo we find ourselves in.

And our fundamental choice is simple - it is between government control, the medium of which is coercion, and individual control, the medium of which is capital.

The real question is not whether we want our saintly leaders to deliver us from evil through benevolent policies.

The real question is whether we want the Jeff Bezoses of this world to discharge their power through coercion or through capital.

Those are the two flavors we may choose for our shit sandwich, and one glance at history should make the answer of that question simple. To answer the former would mean a leap back in time, back to the era of absolutists, which mankind has spent thousands of years trying to wrestle itself free from.

A worldview is a set of opinions and I think the mechanistic worldview is in part characterized by a leap of faith in terms of our current understanding and our future understanding. Perhaps the claim "all is physical" could be said to be a leap of faith, and I can see how it could lead someone towards a mechanistic world view ("all is physical, therefore..."), though not necessarily.

Ultimately I don't think it's specific scientific theories or philosophies that lead to a mechanistic worldview, but rather a failure to acknowledge their boundaries.

No, this is an erroneous view of mechanistic worldview. The scientific community does not approve of this view. It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. It's even at odds with the discipline of science because it purports to reduce everything into formulaic existence. — L'éléphant

I wouldn't say the mechanistic worldview is held only by a handful of philosophers.

It seems a large part of western societies have come to view the world this way, whether they fully realize it or not. Perhaps it is precisely their lack of affinity with science that leads them down this path of wishful thinking. To be fair, it is a very optimistic way of viewing the world, however optimism is no safeguard for folly.

It also explains why we see science manhandled to suit political purposes, attempting to use it to explain complex systems. The rampant abuse of statistics for example, and that doesn't limit itself to the political arena, but we also see it used in advertisement to great effect.

I would argue such things could never be so effective if we didn't have a population that readily believes science is capable in proving things that most scientists would raise their eyebrows at.

According to the definitions of scientism I was able to find, I can imagine these topics are related. Feel free to discuss such things, and also alternative worldviews which may be synthesized with the mechanistic worldview to produce something more satisfying.

I don't think it has to be depressing at all.

Another point Desmet makes is that while the mechanistic worldview has brought us many positive things, it has also taken things away.

Essentially, it has put man in a very unnatural environment, towards which we lack an intuitive understanding. Desmet describes this as a lack of resonance, which man would otherwise have in their natural environment.

While a departure from the mechanistic worldview may close some doors in terms of which problems we believe will be solved by science, it also opens doors that science had previously closed.

Consider a depressed person who could not be cured by pills, but was cured by a more holistic approach to their psychological well-being.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex. — Hanover

I struggle to see how it is liberal at all to be espousing shoulds and should nots about something as personal as individual identity.

Sorry, but this is like listening to a fairytale. So much has been written about it that I don't know where to begin other than to refer you to Ha-Joon Chang, David Harvey, Lynn Stout, William Lazonick, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gary Gerstle, etc. -- just off the top of my head. — Xtrix

And you believe people haven't written about the virtues of a free capitalist economy? You could list a hundred writers, in the end its about the rational arguments, so lets stick to those and not to lists of names.

The state subsidizing and bailing out industries, from defense contracts and Big Ag to publicly funded research/development to tax breaks, the state is there constantly. They lobby the state for what they want, and they know they need a very large corporate nanny state to survive. Free markets serve as a great cover for everyone else, as they run to pick up their government bailouts. A nice story. — Xtrix

You can characterize it any way you like. You'll struggle to find a freer system anywhere else - and yet that system in its current shape is crucially flawed. Clearly, the answer to those flaws it not more government, and neither is it to end private ownership.

That would be communism, which already has been tried and it has failed several times.

The "certain degree of choice" is also an illusion. The "choice" between a Ford and a Chevy, or a thousand brands of toothpaste. That's supposed to demonstrate the wonders of the "free market" -- all the wonderful choices we have. — Xtrix

You would've preferred to live in the Soviet Union? There the government makes the choices for you. Your housing, your occupation, your one type of bread that's available, etc. There the impoverished worker indeed has no alternatives.


Your position doesn't make any sense. On the one hand you reel against the terrible economic freedoms, and how those freedoms are responsible for all the terrible things that befall people in society, and on the other hand you deny such freedoms exist! So what is it going to be?

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose. — Xtrix

And I've repeatedly argued this type of argument throws all sense of proportion out of the window. The idea we're freer to choose the country we live in than we are to choose our occupation is just silly.

Now, you say when there's "sufficiently high cost," it's no longer voluntary -- even without the threat of violence. — Xtrix

No, when someone says "Work for me or starve to death", I think that's clearly coercion.

To be absolutely clear: if you understand the absurdity of my claim, you should understand the absurdity of yours. — Xtrix

What exactly do you believe I am claiming?

I have no issue in maintaining a sense of proportion. There's a significant difference between an average worker who has plenty of choice regarding his occupation, and someone who is economically completely cornered.


We can't treat those the same, as you would try to treat choice of work and choice of nationality the same.


One does not choose what country they are born in, the country in which they build their existence and roots, and the laws to which they are subjected.

That people may eventually be in a position to change that conditions does not change government's essential nature - violence and coercion.

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system. — Xtrix

Nonsense. You're free to do all of those things. Worker-owned/run enterprises? How many people don't work independently for themselves or in small groups?

All of those things are out of reach if one doesn't have any good ideas, initiative or a desire to incur the risk of investment.

And I believe here we are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the anti-capitalist idea - that building a business is something that should magically happen to us, without any effort, without any intellectual effort to produce a good idea, without any investments that incur risk. It reeks of entitlement.

If you want to have stability, no responsibility and no risk, you're free to be a "wage slave", whatever that means. And even in those situations a person can grow if they want to, but if they work resentfully, believing they deserve more without actually working for it, believing that because they work a simple job, there are no skills for them to develop there, it won't get them very far and in this case their supposed poverty is self-imposed.

You have this master or that master -- or starvation. That's the choice. — Xtrix

That's not the choice for an average worker. What a caricature. It's very telling that your argument rests on such a skewed view of what the average working person looks like.

What you describe is the choice for someone who is socially and economically completely cornered and has nothing to fall back on. As far as I know there are many charitable or government-run organisations that ensure that even such a person does not have to fear starvation - and that is a good thing.

We wouldn't say that taking kids away from abusive families is the only solution to child abuse -- we want to end child abuse. — Xtrix

You're now going to compare workers to abused children?

Very characteristic that you should choose this metaphor, because it showcases exactly what is wrong with a state-centric solution to all perceived problems. People are not children, and they don't need a parent-government to guide their life's choices.

I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do. — Xtrix

See my point about the costs incurred by business-owners.

But why are you not free to set up a business according to your ideal? It sounds wonderful - all that's left is for you to take your idea to the market.

Actually, I'm sure there already are plenty of businesses that operate more or less on that concept.

When applied to a large scale it probably will run into the problem that the larger the democracy, the less efficient it becomes. The only reason states can get away with being democratically run is because states can get away with being extremely inefficient. Businesses can't. States have a monopoly on their violent trade, after all.


So what then? Would you like government to impose this democratic system on business, even if it is completely inefficient? This is again sounding more and more like full-blown communism.

It's worth noting that while history's capitalist projects could not provide everything, it's pretty clear that history's communist projects failed to provide anything.

I absolutely apply it to myself. I'm in this country voluntarily. — Xtrix

Then what is this rant about employment and wage slavery about? All of it is voluntary in your view. What is the problem?

By the time one even has the chance to leave a job, usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that job. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. — Xtrix

You have a chance to work towards leaving your job from the moment you accept it. The same does not apply to a child that's born in a certain country. In fact, the child never accepts anything. The two aren't remotely comparable.

And at the same time, if a worker truly is in a situation that is comparable - that from the moment of their working life they were press-ganged into a job that they could somehow never leave, in which they cannot accumulate any wealth or learn any skills that could provide him with an alternative, I would have no problem acknowledging that is problematic and obviously not considered as voluntary. I strongly disagree with your attempt to generalize this idea, though.

True, you can argue that it's technically voluntary -- and that's true -- but it overlooks so much as to be callous. — Xtrix

For the average worker it's true - it's completely voluntary.

For some people living in dire poverty it is no longer true, and overlooking that would be callous, but that is something I have never argued for.

So if you don't believe your own words, you may now also stop pretending that you're representing mine.

You're still free to leave. No one said it was easy, and no one is coercing you through threat of violence to stay. — Xtrix

Of course I am. I'm bound to my system, my nationality, by many laws. If I were to ditch all of that by burning my identity papers and crossing a border somewhere, I'd be an outlaw.

If it were the case I could do so without any legal (that is to say violent/coercive) penalty, I would agree. People in the 18th - 19th century were free to get on a boat and travel to the United States, for example.

My point is the determine whether the use of force/power/authority/control/domination is legitimate or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mostly it isn't -- it's a hard test to pass -- but it's possible. — Xtrix

Legitimate implies lawful - I can agree to an extent.

I believe both physical force and non-physical power or control need to abide by laws, preferably laws which are 'set in stone' in a constitution, clearly delineating the rights of citizens.

Preferably set in stone, precisely because government cannot be allowed to seep into the cracks. If it is allowed to do so, it will pervert the system in its favor over time.
___________________

I didn't say just, I said legitimate. — Xtrix

I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times. — Xtrix

The reason it is relevant, is because legitimacy (lawfulness) can be tested independent of government, since all are equal before the law.

Societal notions of justice cannot in my view legitimize violence.

But I skipped this one because I don't want to have a length debate on Friedman here. I intend to start a thread about the man in the future. — Xtrix

I'm looking forward to it. :ok:

I think a good example might be our perception of the role of modern medicine in curing depression.

In typical mechanistic thinking some seem to believe something as complex as an individual's mental well-being can be reduced to a chemical imbalance and cured with antidepressants.

I go to the doctor, I take a pill, and my ailments are gone.

The reality is often a lot more stubborn, and antidepressants can have serious adverse effects even in relation to the things it supposedly cures.

That doesn't mean there's no scientific basis for its use, but it seems a mechanistic worldview draws doctor and patient alike into believing that basis is more conclusive than it actually is.

There is no free market. Another myth. — Xtrix

Those are not your only options. Yeah, tell that to the millions of people in near poverty in the United States, living paycheck to paycheck. You may want to gloss over it, but that's your own deal. — Xtrix

Of course there is a free market. Perhaps not absolutely free, but that's besides the point. It's exactly the low level of regulations of and interference with the market one finds in a free capitalist society that provides people with a certain degree of choice, and I will maintain that it gives even the poorest some degree of freedom when it comes to choosing their employer and employment.

But regarding the ease of leaving the country -- sometimes it's easier, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation. Mostly it's going to be a hassle, I'm sure. But it's still an option. Thus, living in the country is voluntary. As voluntary as staying in a job. — Xtrix

Obviously when something incurs a sufficiently high cost, it can no longer said to be voluntary. I've already said that for someone living in dire poverty, choice of employment may not be voluntary.
However, in what world is an impoverished worker freer to leave the country than he is to find a different employer? Again, you're throwing all sense of proportion out of the window, and that will make reasonable debate impossible.

You -- and every other advocate of "free market," small government, etc. -- always like to raise the idea that jobs are voluntary, and make voluntary agreements a crucial component of what's considered an ideal, or close to ideal, interaction. — Xtrix

The vast majority of people have plenty to choose from when it comes to employment, even unskilled workers.

I don't believe there are so many people who can truly be said to have no alternatives whatsoever, even by reasonable standards, but to the degree that there are I can agree that they are in a precarious situation and their relationship with their employer isn't entirely voluntary.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave. — Xtrix

You don't apply this standard yourself, so why would I take this argument serious?

By the time one even has the chance to leave a country, usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that society. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. Where does your impoverished worker get that? Or is the impoverished worker only the norm when it suits your argument?

And ultimately, this isn't even a choice you can make on your own. You need the approval of both your country of birth and your country of destination, in other words, you need to conform to laws, and laws are enforced through violence, so you're not 'free to leave' at all.

This attempt at making a change in employment the same as migrating is just silly.

Which? — Xtrix

These:

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot. — Tzeentch

____

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government).

I agree that we may look beyond the use of physical force, and also be critical of other power structures. However, I cannot in principle agree with using physical force as a means to tackle power structures that do not rely on physical force. Sometimes we must accept it as the only way, but I cannot accept it as a conscious method. — Tzeentch

_____

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial.

A second argument he has made is that 'robber barons', those who seek to exploit others, are not avoidable. Our choice is whether such individuals function through capital or through government coercion, and he views the former to be the lesser of two evils. — Tzeentch

As you said, science is a tool. The 'mechanistic worldview' can perhaps be understood best as a set of opinions we have derived from our use of science.

These opinions are not about things that science can do or prove (that would just be science), but about things we believe science will be able to do in the future, or perhaps illusions about things science is already able to do (which would be a misuse of science).

In my view it is characterized by attempts to oversimplify systems that science has shown to be complex, thereby characterized by a disregard for the boundaries of science and thereby unscientific.

Very interesting! When I get the time I will give it a thorough read.

You’re right: the choice to feed your family or starve isn’t really much of a choice at all. — Xtrix

You're comparing apples to oranges. When one lives in absolute poverty and those are your only options I might agree that employment isn't voluntary, but there's not a modern country in the world in which those are your only options, and the free market is largely to thank for that.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country. — Xtrix

"Much more freedom" how?

How is it easier to migrate to another country, which essentially implies one also needs to find different employment, than it is to find only different employement? (Ironically, the only time this point of view might have had some merit is in 18th - 19th century America, in which immigration was completely unregulated.)

And the idea it is easier to change the law than it is to change employer is equally something I cannot imagine you genuinely believe.

Staying at a job is as “voluntary” as staying in the country, yes. No one is physically forcing you to do either. Leaving either could involve a lot of work and hardship, true— but that’s life. Here I’m just applying conservative/libertarian logic. — Xtrix

I’m simply pointing out the silliness and simplicity of this interpretation. — Xtrix

What you're doing is departing from all sense of proportion - something which is absolutely necessary to have a constructive debate about human affairs.


Also, how come you ignored about 75% of my earlier post?

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit.

Your choice to stay in the country is, technically, voluntary. You can leave. — Xtrix

Your use of the word "technically" implies you yourself see the issue with that statement.

Most jobs don’t have contracts. My job is at-will, for example. Never signed anything. So what? It’s still an agreement. — Xtrix

In the case of government there was never even any agreement. Man is simply press-ganged into coming along. By the time they are able to question it, they have spent decades firmly rooting themselves into that society.

Remaining in a country, same thing. — Xtrix

You cannot in one sentence reel against capitalist exploitation of workers, implying their labour is performed involuntary, and in the next imply that switching jobs is the same as switching countries.

If you want to use such an uncompromising standard in discussing human affairs then I'm afraid we'll have to start the conversation over, and we'll see where that uncompromising standard brings us.

Some individuals go through an unnatural process of intentionally weakening or illegally strengthening their bodies to achieve a certain aesthetic ideal. Good for them, though neither of these is compatible with competitive sports and I don't see why that should grant them special treatment.

If they want to compete under special rules, then they may start their own competitive leagues.

In the latter case, there are no democratic means -- you have no vote in the board of directors or who your boss or CEO is. You can advocate for yourself or form a union, but you can be fired for nearly any reason, at any time. They tell you what to wear, what's being produced, what time to show up, when to eat lunch, etc. -- and then, after you and all of your fellow coworkers have run the machines or done the paperwork, generating loads of profit, they will decide what to do with it. You have no say in it. — Xtrix

In the case of work you do have a say. Isn't your choice to sign a contract with an employer completely voluntary? You may even start your own if that is unappealing to you. And if that fails too, you can even be unemployed.

My 'social contract' with my government has no such voluntary elements. In fact, they never had me sign anything!

Just replace "power" with "illegitimate use of force," then. Same thing. If "power" is too abstract for you. — Xtrix

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot.

I said OUR principle should be looking for structures of power, dominance, control, etc., and checking for their legitimacy. I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times. — Xtrix

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government).

I agree that we may look beyond the use of physical force, and also be critical of other power structures. However, I cannot in principle agree with using physical force as a means to tackle power structures that do not rely on physical force. Sometimes we must accept it as the only way, but I cannot accept it as a conscious method.

Then we are in agreement, because that's exactly what's happened. — Xtrix

Some common ground at last. :smile:

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, — Tzeentch

Really? He repeatedly claims they're a myth. — Xtrix

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial.

A second argument he has made is that 'robber barons', those who seek to exploit others, are not avoidable. Our choice is whether such individuals function through capital or through government coercion, and he views the former to be the lesser of two evils.

I believe man should always strive towards rational understanding. However we have now come to a point where rational understanding has us admitting rationality won't bring us further, at least for the time being.

This seems like a good opportunity to clean up our view of science, refamiliarize ourselves with its limits, and hopefully in the process make a step towards depoliticizing science, which I think is starting to become an increasingly large problem.

It seems to me the more man is aware of his own ignorance, the more free and pluralistic a society can become. However, I'm not so optimistic we will get there soon, since we are still going to have to deal with the death throes of a dying, technocratic system.

This is, in fact, how science works. — 180 Proof

Yes. That's why I sought to distinguish between what Dr. Desmet calls the 'mechanistic worldview' and science itself.

I don't think so. Propaganda works. Terrorism works. This is the appliance of science to the mechanisation of humans. If you want to control the temperature, use an air-conditioning unit and a thermostat, if you want to control people, use propaganda and terror. — unenlightened

Maybe I phrased it wrong, but I don't think those things are all that scientific. Defining the means and ends of propaganda and terrorism into scientific equations that produce consistent results seems like an impossibility.

I see your point though.

The issue seems more that we have the illusion that such a thing is possible. We're increasingly unaware of the limitations of science, luring for example politicians into believing they can engineer society to their liking.

What are you calling for? — 180 Proof

I think that we need to acknowledge the boundaries of science, instead of throwing them aside and letting wishful extrapolation, that is to say: fantasy, take over. Ignorance and delusion aren't all that productive in and of themselves, but in the hands of the powerful they're downright dangerous.

A quick Google search indicates that Dr. Desmet is primarily concerned with The Psychology of Totalitarianism. And I infer that he views the current trend toward Fascist politics as a return to the ruthless top-down control of the Catholic Church, that eventually led to the Protestant rebellions and to the Scientific emancipation from Inquisition-enforced dogma. — Gnomon

Desmet recently became known for that work you named, which deals primarily with societal dynamics during the covid epidemic.

The mechanistic worldview is connected to totalitarianism, perhaps even caused its rise in the early 20th century, in that it suggests man is able to find a singular truth, including to those complex systems such as how human civilization should be ordered.

Totalitarian states have been characterized by such beliefs in singular truths; a belief that complex human systems and problems can be solved like scientific or mathematical equations.

I'm not sure if Desmet makes the comparison to the church as explicitly as I did in my post, but I thought it was a striking metaphor.

Although that kind of Totalitarianism was tamped-down for a while, it is currently resurgent in the secularized & scientized Western democracies. Donald Trump, among others, has revived the spirit of Totalitarianism, by synthesizing politics with a religious inclination to worship a higher power, as embodied in an all-powerful Father Figure : the Fuhrer, the King, the Pope.
Apparently, some people are not comfortable with free-thinking; preferring to be told what to do, and to believe. — Gnomon

I think this problem goes deeper than the political tribalism and demagoguery our world is currently plagued by. Desmet argues that what seperates totalitarianism from a dictatorship is that totalitarianism arises from within the population, so in that sense it is actually 'bottom-up', though to classify it as such would be too simple.

It arises from a desire within the population for certainty and security, and their willingness to abdicate power to the political figures that promise it.

I think your observation about the synthesis of politics and religious inclination is striking, though I would add to that worship of higher power also the worship of ideals, which in totalitarian societies often were much stronger than the worship of a single person or party.

Perhaps it was the observation that Totalitarian Politics is based on a Mechanistic Paradigm of centralized power, that roused Dr. Desmet to call for the End of the Mechanistic Worldview. — Gnomon

That might be pretty close. You might find his works interesting. He has also given many publically available interviews in English. I probably do a poor job at conveying all the details and nuances of it. All in all I found Desmet to be a very clear and nuanced thinker.

Tzeentch, do you know what he envisions as a Non-Mechanical Worldview to guide a multi-cultural & querulous planet, that is about to conquer new worlds beyond Terra Firma? — Gnomon

It goes beyond my current familiarity with his work to give you a precise explanation of what he believes the alternative might be.

It might be as simple as instead of ignoring the boundaries of science, we acknowledge them and adopt a more humble attitude towards the human relation with reality. If we are able to acknowledge our own limited understanding of reality, we may also be less inclined to follow demagogues down the primrose path when they profess to have all the answers.


For clarification; the mechanistic / scientific worldview is not the same as science or the scientific method. Desmet is obviously not calling for the end of science!

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that our current societal application of the scientific method is, ironically, unscientific.

Any system of organizing society is based on rules, which are useless without enforcement of those rules. — Xtrix

I believe the best mode for humans to coexist is voluntary. That's how I and most people (including most business!) conduct themselves every day. I don't desire to live in a society in which voluntariness cannot be achieved, but alas I have little choice.

That is not feasible for a modern state. It needs violence and threat of violence.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power. — Xtrix

I disagree.

Violence, threat of violence and coercion are all clearly definable along the lines of physical force.

Illegitimate power is essentially undefinable, so I could never agree to trusting governments, as flawed and corrupt an instrument as they are, with defining such a term.

We should all come down much harder on private power, especially in the hands of the few owners of multinational corporations (which, incidentally, own the government), rather than the government. — Xtrix

Private power and multinational organisations are two seperate things, though. I might agree with you that the power of multinational organisations may need to be curbed. I would do so specifically on the grounds that their power is now seeping into governments - an instrument of force - putting an instrument of force in the hands of private individuals.

We need to delineate, and we need to delineate clearly.

To point at the power of multinationals and conclude therefore private ownership (capitalism) needs to go (I'm not sure if you're arguing that, but I certainly have seen it suggested on this forum) is several bridges too far for me.

For all the libertarian talk about the failure of government, what's conspicuously missing is a critique of private power — Xtrix

I'm not defending libertarianism here, but I don't think that's missing at all in liberal thought.

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, and at the same time he questioned whether government coercion was the right way to change that situation. Sometimes it was!

Ending it with "predicated on violence and coercion" doesn't sound like seeing it both though but I'll take your word for it [...] — Benkei

Government being predicated on those things is an unfortunate yet inescapable reality in my mind - our entire work of thought pertaining to government should be thoroughly drenched in that understanding, lest we forget its evils.

What kind of government activities are you against? — Benkei

I'm not sure if you're asking what I believe the role of government should be in general terms, or in more specific terms in what recent policies I object to. Both would be very lengthy subjects.

During the covid epidemic I believe we saw the Dutch government bend, stretch and manipulate our system of law to a degree that is far beyond the scope of the problems we have discussed so far. A government that does not follow the rule of law both in spirit and in action, is an entirely different beast.

You see force, I see democratic cooperation/social contracts and contracts need to be enforced. — Benkei

I see both, honestly.

I see a certain need for government, and a certain need to enforce rules that allow people to live together in cooperation, but I also see that at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion.

Under circumstances, I can accept that as a necessary evil. However, I will never be able to step over the fact that it is a deeply flawed method of organizing human coexistence. When carried out by an individual we recognize the use of violence as almost universally wrong, yet when carried out by a collective we don't bat an eye. I don't hold such a double standard, and will advocate minimization of the use of force at every opportunity.

Nope. I’ve said many times that I respect Friedman, for example, and take him seriously— however wrong or misinterpreted I think he is. — Xtrix

I'm glad we've cleared that up then.

I will have a look at the policy you named.

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. — Xtrix

Sure. But you won't get off that easily. You quite confidently proclaim that the lack of market troubles in this time period was due to the measures government took, and not, as I suggested, may also be attributed to the United States' position in the world as the only country that wasn't in complete ruins.

What makes you so confident about that? What mechanisms do you believe were at play that caused this success? Why were these successful policies later abandoned?

"Figure it out yourself" won't do.

Classical liberalism — in the example of Adam Smith — developed in a radically different world. What Smith describes is often completely ignored, particularly about markets. It’s not like Friedman or Sowell or Von Mises or Hayek or Rand or any of these other people you’re undoubtedly influenced by. — Xtrix

I'm not familiar with Von Mises, and Rand is a bit of an oddball. She was more a philosopher than an economist, and I tend to read her works as such. Kind of like how one may read Nietzsche, but not to get ideas on how to model society.

I am of course familiar with the others, and I think your observation that these ignore the core ideals of classical liberalism is incorrect.

What flows forth from the idea that man has inherent moral value and rights, is that he should be, as much as is feasible, free from coercion and should to the greatest degree be able to pursue his own goals in life. Most, perhaps all, liberal thinkers recognize government as a form of coercion, therefore it stands to reason that a central question in liberal thought is what is the legitimate role of government.
Further, one of the greatest tools with which governments exert power over people is economic means, which is why almost every liberal thinker believes in the importance of economic freedom.

You suggest to view these men as inhuman monsters that reduce human beings to cogs in a market machine, but nothing could be further from the truth. While you may disagree with their ideas, I honestly don't know how someone could read their work and come to that conclusion - that seems to me the result of preconceptions of 'the enemy' so to speak.

I think classic liberal thought and the many schools of thought that sprang from it attest to a great degree of respect for the individual and his sovereignty, however that also includes to grant him freedom to sin and freedom to fail, and freedom to pursue his own goals insofar he does not infringe upon the rights of others. It also means that it doesn't go without saying that A's misfortune justifies the coercion of B by C.

____

We know from history that smaller government leads to worse abuse by capitalists (exploitation). — Benkei

And similarly that big government leads to worse abuse by politicians. it's up to you to decide which of the two you find more appalling, but my position should be clear.

Especially in light of modern corporate power, the state is the only entity capable of being a counterveiling force to capitalist power. Trust in the Dutch governments was highest with "vadertje Drees", a social Democrat. The last politician we had that was respected across party lines when the ontzuiling wasn't even fully accomplished. Because back then his breed of politicians at least tried to do what was best for most citizens, instead of catering to special interests. — Benkei

The Netherlands and perhaps the world at large is in dire need of people who can wield power responsibly. When I look at the Dutch government and parliament today, I see the exact opposite. I'm not hopeful, but perhaps I would feel differently if such individuals were around today.

I don't see the trend towards corruption reversing any time soon, if at all. Though they might exist, I can't think of any examples in which such a trend was successfully reversed.

Since then we've seen the slow erosion of the welfare state due to liberal theory's narrow idea of freedom (as only negative freedom). — Benkei

Perhaps you can elaborate this erosion of the welfare state. I've always thought Dutch social security to be fairly extensive.

I'm also not sure whether this erosion, if there truly is such a thing, isn't the result of it becoming unaffordable under the weight of our aging population.

Further, if in a country with social security like the Netherlands has, there still is a problem with poverty (which I may agree there is, to some extent) perhaps there is merit to the idea that it isn't within the government's capability to alleviate poverty even if it is given the power and resources to do so.

Lastly, liberal theory does not collectively reject all forms of social spending. For example, this is what Hayek said about it:

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

____

Without financial solidarity, there's no social solidarity. And when a government isn't seen to combat social injustice, you get distrust of the government. — Benkei

I don't think solidarity that's forced at gunpoint is solidarity at all.

Additionally, I think it's up to individuals to combat social injustice, and not up to governments to define ideas of justice to this end.

The current distrust we see in government, I believe, is due to the arbitrariness of the rule of law, the way laws are taken from their intended context and abused to suit the needs of the government, and the speed with which laws are passed whenever it suits the government. All the while the government has itself has proven to be the worst perpetrator of injustice. True injustice. Literally having ruined innocent people's lives to an extent even the most malignant individual could not conceive and having taken zero responsibility for it. It genuinely makes me sick to think of it.

I think it's no longer about party ideology but personal character. We need representatives that can ignore party politics, set aside their ego and sincerely think about "what is best" instead of technocratic adjustments and I don't really care if he's a liberal or a socialist deep down. Both ideologies brought a lot of good and probably reflect in a sense a basic human contradiction: that of belonging (socialism) and being yourself (liberalism). — Benkei

I agree. The current problems of our political system go deeper than differences based on ideology.

I consider capitalism as it's ordered at this point in time to be an affront to both. Wage slavery, attacks on labour unions in the US, liberalisation of international markets meaning that people are slowly all become flex workers with related deterioration in labour protections and room and freedom for personal development, etc. — Benkei

I struggle to see how capitalism is responsible for all of that, or how a departure from capitalism would solve it. But I'm open to hearing ideas.

You call it “natural,” but that’s really no excuse. As I mentioned, there were no major crashes during the Bretton Woods era — when the financial sector was actually regulated. — Xtrix

Can you explain to me the economic mechanism that ensured, as you say, no major crashes took place during this period, and why we are not utilizing this mechanism today?

Yes, and reducing human purpose to competition in markets is insane. — Xtrix

I truly hope you don't view classical liberalism as espousing such a view. Classical liberalism elevated the common man from a slave to autocrats, viewed as little more than a barn animal, to a sovereign being, with inherent rights and moral value.

If you believe I'm arguing from a standpoint as you just described, you must think I am some sort of monster and I don't believe there is any point in continuing this discussion.

It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true “small government.” Didn’t work so well. — Xtrix

Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason.

In any case, you’re talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all we’ve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. — Xtrix

Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic.

It creates unnatural incentives and as a result essentially forces the government to stay involved. It only worsens the problem in the long run as people are lured into businesses that would not be able to stay afloat naturally.

That goes on until the power of government is no longer enough to support this unnatural situation. The house of cards always comes tumbling down at some point, the question is how long we allow ourselves to keep building on crumbling foundations - government interventions can drag this on for a very long time, as we've seen with the banking crises, the finale of which we're still due.

There’s a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. — Xtrix

I'm sure there are, and not all of them without merit, though the federal reserve has certainly done more harm than good.

On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (“regimented capitalism”). That era — from 40s to early 70s — is what most people mean by America’s golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations — especially the financial sector — all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society — at least for white people. — Xtrix

Every system and policy has its benefits and detractors. To me the question would be how much of that prosperity was made possible by the fact virtually every other country in the world lay in ruins and the United States had near-unlimited global reign as a result of World War 2. You're pointing at a 30-year period - that is not a very long time. What happens after that period, when the rest of the world is once again able to compete with the US economy?

It no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. — Xtrix

You may believe this, but the world disagreed, and people came from all over the world to live under this 'terrible' system. You are dismissing classic liberal ideas and libertarianism as "nonsense" and fantasy - it's crazy. The proof is in the pudding.

Maybe you've mistaken me as arguing for some kind of libertarian utopia on practical grounds - I'm certainly not doing that. Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government.

I'll happily take the good with the bad. No system is perfect. It seems you're keen on pointing at all the things that go well as a sign of success of your ideas, but ignore the flipside of the coin, so it's a bit unfair you're accusing me of harboring fantasies.

Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. — Benkei

Strong governments produce the vessel by which politics can do its damage. I agree, if we were somehow able to seperate governance from imperfect man perhaps we'd be in agreement.

That power finds its way into the hands of powerful and often corrupt individuals anyway, however the question is whether they get to use and abuse their power on the market through economic force, or through government through coercion, or worse yet, both.

That's why I believe governments should be small, with very limited mandates: because malignant power exercised through economics, while it can also be very unpleasant, is of a different order of magnitude than malignant power excercised through government.

I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture. — Benkei

Had you asked me five or six years ago, I would have agreed. I don't know what exactly changed, but if I had to guess (and a guess is all it is) is that multinational business has grown so powerful that it can use all these mandates governments have given themselves to further assert their power - crony capitalism at its worst.

However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen.

Being exploited by private business is of course equally unpleasant, but at least private business will always have to contend with law and a government's monopoly on violence - its evils and power over citizens is at least limited to a degree. Government has no such boundaries.

I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing. — Benkei

I agree. It's one of many instances that contributed to my disillusionment.

I've come to regard this process by which a system corrupts over time as an inevitability, which is exactly the reason why I feel the power of such systems should be kept small by its very structure.

Perhaps this trend may reverse itself naturally by the integrity of our system, if indeed it still possesses any. Maybe. But that remains to be seen and I am skeptical.

And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way. — Benkei

It seems to me most political parties in the Netherlands are occupied with staying friendly with one another, which essentially ensures the role of opposition is no longer carried out the way it should, with some individuals being the exception.

I suppose this is one advantage the United States has with their two party system: they hate each other's guts so when one party does something questionable or unlawful, the other party will expose it ruthlessly, thereby at least the function of opposition is still carried out. In the Netherlands it is swept under the rug. Some people who take their role as statesmen and -women seriously will still call attention to it, but their power simply does not compare to that of the political order.

Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented — as all capitalists know. — Xtrix

They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP.

A good state for humanity is that everyone leads a flourishing life and we therefore have less crime, better education and health and generally a better society which needs less intervention from governments. — TheVeryIdea

It is very questionable whether large governments produce these things, and whether large governments will ever cede their power when they become superfluous.

The vast majority of people will seek to protect their wealth, this includes the very wealthy, so very few people will give up any more than they absolutely have to even though there is an enlightened self interest to do so. If you earn 100k per year, in 10 years you will have earned 1 million of whatever currency you are being paid. It would take you 10,000 years to earn 1 billion, yes that's ten thousand years! No one needs to have 1 billion, even 100 million looks excessive. — TheVeryIdea

Judging other people's wealth to be excessive is a very typical thing. Suppose an ascetic came along and started to judge your wealth. They judge that you could do without all of that fancy food, nice-looking clothes, your car, your house, warm showers, etc. After all, they don't need those things so why should you?

Greed is something that only other people ever seem to be guilty of, and excessive wealth only applies to people who are wealthier than ourselves. The irony is that much of that 'excessive wealth' is created by providing goods and services that benefit society, and that those 'excessively rich' people also pay more taxes and thus contribute more to other people's well-being already.

It is in everyone's interest to have a stable society and not have wild economic fluctuations, bubbles, wars, market crashes, revolutions. Therefore there needs to be regulation and taxation to create a society that is seen as fair and allows everyone to flourish and to do that by curbing the worst excesses of the most acquisitive. — TheVeryIdea

It is not evident that big government prevents such things. In fact, government intervention often leads to unexpected consequences down the line which arguably are worse than what it sought to mend.

In my view, governments seem to often trade small, short-term problems for large, long-term ones - partly due to ignorance and partly due to election politics.

Let the economy run its course and there will be ups and downs, crises, of course. However, what government intervention often does is it tries to prevent these natural fluctuations, resulting in ultimately a bigger crisis.

One example would be how the US government has gotten into the habit of extending guarantees to large banks who they deemed 'too big to fail', which predictably caused those large banks to exhibit more and more problematic behavior now that their risk is essentially carried by the government.

Perhaps that first bank should have just been allowed to fail. That would be a disaster for some people, of course. But that would be the end of it. From that point onward it would be clear to all that risky business practices bring along real risks, and that no one is going to bail them out. Further, it would've perhaps lead to a greater deal of consciousness among the people that they need to be critical of their banks' business practices, because they are also the bearers of that risk.

Don’t think what’s justified?
6h — Xtrix

For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted.

Sure— and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of “Government is the problem” and “ the era of big government is over.” We have to shrink the government, because it’s to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results. — Xtrix

Well, I don't know about the rhetoric, but policy guided by classical liberalism hasn't been seen in the United States for a very long time.

Government spending in the US has been on a steady rise since the early 20th century and has never made any significant move towards the opposite. And that's no surprise, because that would derive a lot of powerful people of their power.

If politicians sell more government under the guise of less government, then that is a different problem.

Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified.

This discussion was about the difference between how governments behaved and the free market. In fact, you brought it up.

Now you've been told the difference, and suddenly it is no longer about free markets. Funny how that works.

(though curiously never "I see, you're right") — Isaac

I guess that's your problem. Your tendency to resort to pedantics to try and "win" an argument has been noted, and not just by me.

If you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.

If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move. — Isaac

I think we're done here.

This has already been answered. Your miserable lack of success at competing is not the same as the government not letting you compete. — Isaac

That's the competition. If your security force can't compete with the government's that's their weakness. Toughen up! — Isaac

You don't seem to understand the idea a free market.

A free market is free of coercion. That's why we call it free.

What is the government doing to stop you from competing? Coercing you.

You understand that competition entails using power to compete? — Tzeentch

Same as government's. — Isaac

This has already been answered.

The government will not let you compete.

For example, it's quite conceivable that if you lived in a small rural town far away from law enforcement, a local protection service would serve you better than what the state provides.

Now lets say the people in the town want you to offer this service, and you have a group of burly, armed men who are willing to provide it, then that would seem like a perfectly good way to set up a business.

However, the government will not let you do this. It will throw you jail, and punish you for even trying.

You say this is the same as what a hypothetical bigger security company would do to you on the free market (ignoring for a moment the government's monopoly), but that's clearly not the case.

The only thing a bigger security firm could do in order to stop you is to compete with you. To offer better services at a lower cost, in order to persuade the townsfolk to voluntarily choose their services over the local services. It cannot force people to buy its services, force people to stop buying other services than theirs, or force people to stop offering their services - the government can.