Aerin wrote:First, as Chris said, we are throwing around the word rational a lot here without ever agreeing upon a common definition. Thus I go to my good old American Heritage Dictionary:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical.
So what does logical mean?
Logical: Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable; Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
Nothing in there about self-interest. For good measure, let's check up on reason and logic themselves:
Reason: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Logic: Valid reasoning; The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events
Well, now we're just going around in circles. Suffice to say, there is nothing in the agreed-upon definition of rationality that includes self-interest. Rationality just means making sense.
it takes a bit more then the dictionary to understand the word rational, as it is more then just a word. it's a philosophical idea.
first, you need to think of aristotle, the founder of logic. he famously said "A is A". This principle is paramount to rational thinking, the idea that things are what they are, if A is A it cannot be B. there are no contradictions, a thing that is one thing cannot be another thing. a man cannot be a woman and a man at the same time, A cannot be B, etc etc.
logic only deals with the objective. admitting subjective values (ie I believe, i feel, i think) into a logical debate invariably creates contradictions. you
feel that the government is neccessary, i
feel strongly that it is not. we have a contradiction. if our subjective
feelings are admitted, then we have ended the logical portion of our discussion and entered into one without the boundries of reason, rationality, or logic.
logic is based on the idea that 1 + 1 = 2. a logical person, when faced with the problem 1 + 1 = ? will always answer 2. logic is all about cause and effect, if something happened, there was a reason. nothing ever just happens. if a person has money, he had to obtain it somehow. if a person is a criminal, he must have committed a crime.
therefore, if you are hungry, you eat. if you are cold, you find shelter. if you are tired, you sleep. you only know for certain what condition you are in, so you can only take logical actions for
your own self. that is called acting in rational self-interest.
now we will discuss force. force is used by an individual when they could not convince a logical person to take a certain path. force is devoid of logic. the government has no logical claim to my money, so they force me to pay taxes. they have no logical right to prohibit me from using drugs so they force me to comply. any action that uses force is not a thinking action, force suspends thought as to use force you do not require a logical mind. any animal can force it's will on a weaker animal. it is not a product of rational thinking.
Semantics aside, let's get to what you asked: Do I think force is irrational? No. It makes sense. I am okay with being forced to comply with the law. I trust the majority to vote in their own self-interest (which may or may not be rational), but as we are all human beings, our self-interest is rarely all that different. What works for them usually coincides pretty well with what works for me. If it doesn't it's usually a technicality that I can live with, like the illegalization of marijuana. It's a silly law. I might choose to smoke pot anyway. That doesn't mean that the entire system is flawed. You cannot say that I am irrational for this. I admit that you may not share my belief, and I respect your right to do so and your right to attempt to change the system. But I am not irrational for agreeing to the social contract. It works for me and for society. It makes sense. It is rational.
well, as i pointed out above, according to Rand and Aristotle, two of my favorite rational philosophers, there are no contradictions. but you say that because you
trust (subjective feeling) the majority, and that
trust makes sense to you, government and force are both rational. those are your subjective feelings, they mean precisely squat to my logical mind. i need you to show me the logical reason that i need to be taxed. you haven't done that.
As for proving that coersion is rational, I would argue that the greater good of society is justified by coercing people to follow the laws. Why? We agree on those laws. We pay taxes in good faith that these laws will be upheld. I am willing to sacrifice some convenience, even go along with a few laws I disagree with or think are silly, to assure that my home is protected, there is someone to go to when a crime is committed against me or my family, and that law and order are maintained so that society can function.
again, this is all about what YOU think. unfortunately, those are just YOUR subjective opinions. i don't see how it's rational to force me to follow YOUR opinions just because you THINK it is. the way it was taught to me in philosophy, for a rule to be logical it must apply to all cases and all citizens. your THOUGHTS and OPINIONS certainly don't apply to me. contradiction, illogical.
Coersion is the price we pay for living in a governed society. I want to live in a governed society, so I am willing to be coerced into doing something I may not like to uphold that government. You may not. But since you also live in a governed society, it is the price you must pay. You cannot get the benefits without the price. That is rational.
it would be rational if we all FELT the way you do and were willing to go along with things. saying "you live in a goverened society" does not make the government, or the force they use, rational or logical as per the philosophical definition of the idea first defined by Aristotle, and further developed by Rand, Nozick and others.
i say force is not rational. i say so because force is not neccessary where logic prevails, force overrides logic, and force is not a product of a logical mind as any animal can use force. you tell me force is rational because you, and a bunch of other people, feel that way?
Yes, majority rule can create problems. Again, it's a give and take. I've stated above that I'm willing to give up some things in exchange for others that are more important to me. Contradictions may not be rational in theory, but in reality, they happen and they must be dealt with.
well it's theory we're dealing with. contradictions do not happen in reality
where logic prevails. therefore, if in reality we have a contradiction we do not have logic.
Surely you aren't arguing that anarchy would result in a total elimination of conflicts of interest? After all, if we were all our own arbiters of justice, I'd say it was a contradiction if my pet cat got out, wandered into your yard, and you shot it. I thought my cat should live because it's a free being, you thought it should die because it was on your property. Conflict. Rational? Nope. Real? Yep.
There are no contradictions. when you are faced with one, check your premises. That's what Rand teaches us. So, here we have a contradiction. You say your cat deserved to live and i say it didn't. Let's check out premises. One of us is wrong, one of our arguments is not logical. Logically, it's my property. Your cat doesn't belong there. be that as it may, your cat is not doing anything to my property. I was wrong to destroy your cat.
No more contradiction. If was being logical in the first place, i would never have shot your cat. You ask me if I think the application of logic would eliminate contradictions all together and i say yes, i do think so.
I don't believe freedom is a bad idea. But too much of it is a very bad idea indeed.
why?
I am free to do what I like with my life. I am free to live in America as long as I follow their rules. If I don't like their rules, I am free to go elsewhere. I am not free to tell other people how to live their lives. I am not free to impose my will over anyone else's. Now, before you go and say, "but that's what government does!", I will nip that argument in the bud. Yes, the government imposes its will on the people. Yes, this is very different from me doing the same thing to another individual. Why? Because everyone who lives in a governed society knows the rules, and everyone has equal power to change those rules. Therefore, when the government imposes its will it is doing so on a population fully aware and accepting of this.
So what you are saying is that if a person comes up to me and takes my money at gunpoint, they are wrong, but if a person who works for the IRS does the same thing, they are right?
contradiction. illogical.
you are saying that it is logical because i knew that the IRS man would be coming where as the mugger did not make his intentions clear?
circumstances don't make something logical. the action has to be judged on it's own, otherwise the rule won't apply to every situation and won't be logical. taking money at gunpoint is what muggers do and it's what the state does. there's no difference.
For instance, when you run red lights at 2 in the morning, you know full well that you are breaking the rules. You should not be surprised if you get pulled over for this. You could be indignant and angry, but you can't argue that you had no idea that it could happen. Everyone has access to the law. Everyone can discover the consequence of breaking those laws. Everyone has the freedom to choose to do so anyway, and thus everyone has the freedom to face the consequences.
so, if i intend to murder you for braiding your hair, and i let you know about it, and you braid your hair and i murder you, were YOU the one who was wrong?
It would be VERY different if I were to arbitrarily burn someone's house down because it blocked my view (to use the previous example). If I warned them ahead of time, as the law does, they could take action to prevent me from doing so. But even this is different, because they didn't elect me to be their neighbor.
i disagree. warning or not, you'd still be wrong to burn down the house. and being elected does not give you a free pass to take irrational actions.
So in short, coercion isn't bad if the people want to be coerced. This is rational.
it's not coercision if you want to be told what to do.
Because conflicts will always exist no matter the governing body or lack thereof, majority rule is the only sensible way to make decisions that affect everyone.
why? because you say so? how about everyone makes their own decisions, and they only worry about things that affect themselves? why is that so non-sensical?
This is rational. Everyone has freedom to do what they like with full knowledge of what will happen if they decide to do certain things. This is rational.
knowledge of concequences does not make an action rational! the jews knew hitler was going to kill them because they were jewish, did this make his actions rational? were the jews accepting hitlers decision to kill them by remaining in germany? how is hitler any different from bush?
Equating government with irrationality, as you have done earlier, doesn't hold up.
but it does. It's trying to make governments - which require both force and contradictions to survive - seem rational that doesn't hold up.
