Incidentally, I’m not in favor of “big government” or whatever conventional view of current-say liberals you want to ascribe to me. I’m just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and “liberty” offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth that’s occurred these last 40 years. — Xtrix

I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.

It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism.

By steadily feeding the beast for decades, we've created the worst of both worlds. Government spending in the US is now equal to roughly 30% of GDP. As far as classical liberal ideas go, this state of affairs could hardly be more antithetical.

Does Amazon let me compete freely? No, it does everything in its power to maintain its market dominance. — Isaac

That is the essence of free competition. You understand that competition entails using power to compete?

So the only people who commit violence are the government? Where the hell do you live? — Isaac

Nice try, but crime rings are not participating in a free market. If you think they do, see what happens when you offer your services for violence publicly.

Got any more pedanticism in you? You seem to possess an inexhaustible supply.

I can set up an internet sales company. Amazon might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. — Isaac

Amazon cannot stop you from setting up an internet sales company, and any consequences that may arise from your attempt is a result of either your product not being good, too costly to produce, or people not wanting to buy it.

If people want to buy your product, and your business can at least break even, there is nothing Amazon can do to stop your business from competing with theirs.

Sure, Amazon may leverage the fact people find their offer more attractive than yours, but that has nothing to do with your attempt at setting up your own company.

It seems like what you're doing is blaming Amazon for your failed enterprise, when it is you yourself who is to blame for not being able to provide a better or cheaper product that people want to buy from you.

This has already been demonstrated with the Black Rock example of insurance - which predictably was ignored.


Now, let's compare this with a government and its monopoly on violence:

Does a government let you compete freely on the market? No. Under no circumstance. It won't even allow you to offer your product, let alone compete.

It doesn't matter if you're able to provide a better product than the government, as soon as you try to put it on the market, you are stopped either by law or by force.

You then try to make an argument that if only you're able to get above a certain threshold of customers, you would be able to violently overthrow the government, implying this is the same as how companies compete on the market. This is of course not the case, and no such threshold is necessary for a normal business to compete on the market.

You'll find that it's perfectly possible for large and small companies to exist alongside each other. That's called free competition. Smaller companies often enjoy benefits that make their products cheaper to produce or more attractive locally, and they may compete on that basis. For the government's monopoly on violence that is not so.


An 8-year old could understand the difference, and this is peak pedanticism.

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. — Xtrix

You've got it exactly backwards.

Individuals are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and a government is not needed to tell them what to do, what to spend their money on, etc. It needs to create a framework where individuals can cooperate voluntarily, without coercion. And fundamentally, it needs to be understood that government is itself a tool for coercion, which is exactly why its application must be done sparingly and carefully. That's essentially the basis of all of liberalism - true liberalism, not the poorly-hidden authoritarianism that modern liberalism parades as.

It's the lovers of big government that believe governments should tell people what to do, how to act, what to say, what to think and what to spend their money on, and don't you forget it.

Cut away all the fluffy language, and the lovers of big government are doing nothing less than asking said government to impose their ideals on other people. Because apparently those people need to be told what to do, think, etc. so perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate.

That's the parents' intention - to create a new child. — Tzeentch

... certainly such lunacy is not common. — Isaac

Are we done here? I think we're done here.

What do they intend to force on this child? — Isaac

Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. In other, less harsh words - to create a new child.

Not relevant to the question at hand, we are now talking about the parent's intention.

The child they wish to have.

The intention of the parent is to force another being to exist. There.

That's what a future parent intends - to create a new living being.

Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off. — Isaac

Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative.

Amazon may take advantage of poverty, and that may or may not be immoral, but that is not the same as creating it. Likely those people would be worse off if Amazon disappeared. You simply believe Amazon should offer them a better deal.

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'? — Isaac

I can't take this argument seriously.

Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit" — Isaac

If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here.

Government doesn't protect its position with violence. — Isaac

Of course it does. It does so in war, stopping violent protests, etc. And when it doesn't use physical violence it uses threats of violence. How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so?

Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital. — Isaac

Governments function through violence, the free market does not. They're not even remotely the same.

...enough people. Just like governments. — Isaac

Nonsense. Two people could agree to cover each other's insurance and deprive Black Rock. Black Rock wouldn't care, and this two-person deal may not be as cost effective as what Black Rock offers, but the option is there. All Black Rock could do to stop you, is try to persuade your business partner.

Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products (like governments can) and they cannot stop you from competing on the market (like governments can).

Government and business function fundamentally differently.

What can happen is that government and business form an unholy alliance against the common man, which is exactly why specifically governments need to be kept small and relatively weak in their power over people and business.

They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice. — Isaac

In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. In a world where businesses are also warlords I think it is safe to say we have departed from the context of this discussion.

Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could. — Isaac

It threatens me with violence every day. Every law is enforced by threat of violence. If I don't pay my taxes I get thrown in jail - violence. If I don't stay indoors during the pandemic, I get thrown in jail - violence. Etc.

They're overt threats of violence too, it is all written down in laws so no one has to guess whether the government will get violent if one of its laws are broken - they basically guarantee it. Those are threats.

But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete? — Isaac

For one, the intention to force a human being to live.

One is about impositions, the other about consequences. — Isaac

It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing.

I think what argues is that impositions are immoral based on the intention to impose, thereby the intention is all that is needed, and it doesn't depend on the consequences.

Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions. — Isaac

What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute?

Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' — Isaac

Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. There was no need to redefine.

It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against. — Isaac

On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it.

We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again. — Isaac

What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers.

Of course it does. Government's are elected. — Isaac

Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens.

Governments can be overthrown. — Isaac

Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. No violence necessary, just people making decisions freely.

It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. — Isaac

I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.

I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one.

What is the difference between imposing on someone and forcing a consequent someone to undergo consequences?

They can basically make you destitute. — Isaac

Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute?

The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. — Isaac

In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government.

But I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters.

So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army! — Isaac

Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products, and if they want to take care of their own insurance, nothing's stopping them. Black Rock can't do anything about that except try to sway the people back to their side.

With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, and governments will protect their monopoly on violence with violence.

So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? — Isaac

In most countries companies aren't allowed to coerce. What can a company threaten you with? That it will no longer serve you? I don't see how that is all that threatening, unless they have monopolized basic needs.

Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed. — Isaac

That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.

If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it.

Like...? — Isaac

Beating down peaceful protesters, for example.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences). — baker

Okay, but I fear I will get no further than a psycho-analysis.

And while those may sometimes be interesting and handy, they don't carry much weight as I am not a mind reader.

I'm also going to inevitably step on a lot of toes, but lets try:

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified.


Honorable mention:

- Savior image: one reason I have often seen espoused here is that humanity would cease to exist without procreation. While that is undeniably true, it also suggests that they see the inherent problem with procreation, but choose to procreate anyway as a sort of personal sacrifice to the greater good of humanity. I've always found this one quite humorous, because it suggests the person views themselves as carrying the weight of humanity's survival on their shoulders - a savior figure, if you will. I also don't think there's anyone who genuinely believes this, and that it is more likely a variation on confirmation bias.


Anyway, this is a fun exercise, but it's also a bit cheap. Don't take it too serious.

While I find myself leaning strongly towards the antinatalist side (when compelled by reason, I find I have no choice in that matter), I am still very much part of the active debate and don't consider myself "an antinatalist". I respect everyone who continues to weigh arguments from both sides.

No, but they can make your life extremely difficult if you don't. Just like governments can. — Isaac

I'm not so sure about that.

They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them.

I would argue the evils of government are a whole order of magnitude worse. That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large cooperations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful cooperations than they are to curb their power.

Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could.

Indeed, just like there's no restriction on you setting up your own government and vying for power. — Isaac

Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use.

If on the other hand you want to get together with your pals to cover each other's insurance, can Black Rock stop you?

OK, so if the Thai government used other means - theft, coercion, bullying, grooming, punitive treatment... You'd be OK. — Isaac

No of course not. But it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. Every government functions that way. It's only tools are violence and coercion.

And just because I can threaten you into complying with my wishes, and thereby don't have to be forced violently, that does not change the nature of my act.

When was the last time you know of that the Thai government used violence to enforce its laws? What about the UK government? — Isaac

I don't live in those countries. But wherever you live, the answer is probably all the time.

I live in what most consider a 'civilized' country, and even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity.

In Thailand it is now impossible to get insurance without your provider being ultimately Black Rock. They own every single insurance provider in Thailand. — Isaac

Monopolies and large, centralized power whether in the hands of governments or cooperations is mostly bad. I think at least we can agree on that.

However, Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products, or stop you from getting together with other people who are fed up with their business practices and start something new.

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.

Explain to me the difference. — Isaac

The Thai government forces me through threat of violence to comply with its wishes and buy its services. Black Rock doesn't.

Further, the fact that my family could move to make the schoolyard bully stop taking my lunch money does not change the coercive nature of his act. Neither does whether people vote on whether he gets to take my lunch money. For one, why does anyone get to vote on that, and second, if my voting power is not enough to protect my interests, voting does nothing to relieve the coercion I am subjected to.

governments are not coercive because agents can either vote or move. — Isaac

:snicker:

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

Sure. But one is the result of the voluntary exchange and association, the other of coercion.

I'd say people who seek to coerce have a much larger burden to defend their actions than people who interact voluntarily.

But how come you're different than those people? — baker

No idea. I may just be very dumb and fail to see how their logic adds up.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you? — baker

Insofar as is relevant to this discussion, no.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation? — baker

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity?

For a lot of those it is debatable whether they were achieved by government meddling, or whether their results were at all desirable.

Anyway, my point was never that governments shouldn't do anything.

But if we're going to keep score, shall we also list the many evils governments have perpetrated?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation? — baker

I can't read people's minds.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently.

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), ... — baker

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences? — baker

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments.

I don't think opponents of government intervention are not in favor of improving the lives of their fellow man, they simply see governments as a flawed means of getting there. In fact, you could say that the opponents believe that seeking to solve many such issues is inherently in vain and causes more harm than good.

This characterization to classify people who generally are not in favor of government intervention as selfish is just naive and arrogant.

Proponents of government intervention tend to look at issues very one-sidedly, pointing at one group as the clear victim and thereby justifying their actions, not understanding that government intervention almost always creates new victims elsewhere.

There is no free lunch.

If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.

The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded. It's an act of force.

You're attempting to hide in the fuzzy cracks, but we've progressed. You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into.

You've already admitted to pulling the trigger. Now it's time to take responsibility for the bullet, and the person it killed.

The person being born was not forced to live. they cannot have been because they didn't exist until after that event. — Isaac

That's irrelevant. The parents know that by their direct actions a child will come to be, and that child has no choice in whether it does or not. It's an intentional act that disregards the wills of whom it affects - an act of force.

If I recall, that's your argument. Your the one who wants to avoid all responsibility for anything you didn't directly cause. — Isaac

You recall incorrectly.

In the case of procreation the parents cause the child to be born. In the examples we discussed the moral agent doesn't cause anything and therefore does not bear responsibility.

You could claim that the parents forced a gamete to become a person. — Isaac

The parents willfully initiated a process which they knew would result in a person being born and thus forced to live.

An act of force.

Note that your argument is about causal chains, and that, apparently, one can only be responsible for the first step.

I only pulled a trigger, I never shot the gun. It's the bullet that killed him, but I am innocent!

And more importantly still, what difference does it make? Clearly an act of force took place.

Can one be born without being alive? :chin:

To be born is to be forced by one's parents to live.

That seems like such an obvious statement of fact that I'm struggling to understand why this is still under debate.

But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? — schopenhauer1

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in?

Collectivism may have some merit at the local level, where people cooperate voluntarily and the ties that group them together are tangible.

However, the larger the scope becomes, the more abstract these supposed ties become, the more imaginary (that is to say, non-existent) the group, the more it must rely on coercion and generally the more problematic the results become.

At a certain point it seems that collectivism no longer cares about its (supposed) members, and it becomes an exercise in what is essentially slavery - the subjugation of its (supposed) members to the group ideal, regardless of their individual wishes.


Suppose I find myself in my local recruiter's office, and he intends to draft me for the Vietnam War.
I look at the Vietnam War and conclude that based on what I see, there's no way I have anything in common with the nation that conducts it - I am not an American.

How does the recruiter solve this? What tangible link can the recruiter point to that would save his case, that I am indeed an American and have a duty to go to Vietnam and fight there?

Unless one voluntarily took upon themselves the responsibility to take care of another's well-being, or is themselves the cause of another's suffering, non-interference is always a morally neutral option.

Scenario 1 and 3 essentially portray that this idea about morality involves freedom of choice.

The moral agent is free to involve themselves, or not. Involving oneself can give an opportunity to do good, however one may also pass up on an opportunity to do good.

As for scenario 2, that one cannot simply force others to cater to one's needs should go without saying. If we were to consider that acceptable we'd be back in the jungle.

My problem is that if I say that, for example, murder is unethical then the result, if my view were ever to universally applied (unlikely), would be a happier and safer world. If I say that procreation is unethical then the result, if my view were applied universally (unlikely, again, as you say), would be an empty world. And an empty world, I cannot help feeling, might be a bad thing. I would be promoting an ethical principle which, if applied generally, would lead to a world without humans. That's my problem. — Cuthbert

These worries are fair and understandable. Let me say the following:

The prospect of no humans doesn't appeal to most humans. It doesn't appeal to me either. Yet, when we ask whether something is universalizable or not, we must ask ourselves if the situation that arises is immoral.

Is an empty world an immoral outcome, or just one that we as humans don't find very appealing?

My only qualm is this: if we all do the right thing and refrain from procreating then the human race will quickly cease to exist. And that (I'm tempted to believe, rightly or wrongly) is a bad thing. So by everyone behaving in a way that is beneficial, right and just - that is, by not procreating - then we would collectively create an empty world. — Cuthbert

Why would the existence of the human race even be on the individual's radar? They don't have an influence on whether the human race exists or not, nor will they be around to appreciate how the human race exists or not.

Ultimately moral behavior needs to be guided by rational ideas, and for humans to base their behavior on things they have no control over is, in my opinion, irrational.


Look around you. Is the extinction of the human race even a remote possibility today?

Clearly it is not, and it won't be tomorrow either.

If it even becomes a possibility, let the individuals that live then make their choices to avoid it, if they wish.


Finally, if by some unimaginable fluke all of mankind were to voluntarily decide that not procreating is indeed the moral thing to do, on what basis would you object to them making that voluntary decision?

If the human race is to continue .... — Cuthbert

Perhaps it's a scent of self-righteous free-loading hypocritical nonsense, or did I forget my after-shave? — Cuthbert

That's usually the idea I get when people claim their actions are motivated towards the survival of the human race. What benevolent and great beings to aspire to such lofty ideals!

If you really believe that the US military might stand back while China invades Taiwan because they "recognize" the "One China policy" then I got some people you need to talk to who have some beachfront property in Arizona they wish to sell to you at a great price. — dclements

It should be obvious that in such a scenario the United States may not want to defend Taiwan if it means sparking WWIII, hence they pursue strategic ambiguity.

Your argument is a strawman since I have said nothing to indicate that I believe that either Taiwan, Ukraine or Crimea have only symbolic value. In fact, nowhere have I even mentioned anything about Ukraine or Crimea in this thread so it is a given that you can only assume I might have such a position (just as you might assume that of anyone else on this forum) since I have said nothing on such matters. — dclements

You called Taiwan a trivial issue for the Chinese, which it clearly is not.

Thereby you are making the same mistake as the West has made in Ukraine. Assuming things to be trivial, when the reality is that Russia was prepared to go to war. Taiwan is of similar importance to China. The fact that the issue has been hot for over half a century should tell you enough.

You need to read my posts more carefully.

If they really want to go to war why should they wait till 2027, ... — dclements

Because countries cannot make navies out of thin air.