This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Tldr; Post trying to explain a facet of the Libertarian thinking process and their inherent disdain towards the government.
The Monopoly on Violence
Seems to be the distinguishing feature of an entity that is or isn't a government.
Imagine you live in a lawless land. There are various warring gangs. Your business is repeatedly ransacked by any of the gangs over and over again. However, one of these gangs gains an advantage over the other gangs. A gang member comes by and offers you protection, provided you offer him a share of your revenue. If you refuse, his gang proceeds to ransack your business and possibly do any number of bad things to you. Given you don't want to die and that his gang is doing better than the other ones, you take his offer. The "tax" you pay him now is ultimately just another cost of doing business.
This is commonplace in many parts of Mexico. Large swathes of area are effectively governed by whichever Cartel has their reigns over that area.
Take a look at a hood in Philadelphia vs Juarez. Despite Juarez having 5 times the violent crime and homicide rate as Philadephia, its looks more functional and livable. The streets the cleaner, the infrastructure isn't as dilapidated, and there are more businesses. This is because the Cartels are very much running shit there. Unlike the gangs in Philadelphia, due to the Cartels influence being that much greater, they have an incentive to make sure things are going smoothly, because ultimately they own the shops and need the roads to work. They have their people in all levels of government.
The high crime rate doesn't affect anyone who doesn't get in the cartels way and as such despite its magnitude doesn't worsen the quality of life in the area to the extent it does in Philadelphia. The point I am making is that if a criminal organization becomes influential enough, they start functioning as a government.
A peace march in Michoacan against cartel violence faced a counter protest in favor of the cartel. Both crowds were equally large in numbers. And were filled with "normal people". Women, children and elderly people on both crowds.
Why did so many people in that area prefer to be governed by the cartel instead of the.. government?
Said very simply. As a libertarian, I don't see much difference between a government and a sufficiently competent/potent drug cartel.
They both take your money by force.
They both kill you if you get in their way.
They both want things to run smoothly, one of them obviously so they can make the most amount of money, the other one.. so they can make the most votes(money)?
If you propose to the average western person that he be ruled by the Cartel (and not the Mexican government), that proposition would be unbearable for him, even if he pays taxes, doesn't try to create his own country, and buys weed from a legal pharmacy and not a street dealer. Yet he would probably prefer to live in a hood in Juarez and not a hood Philadelphia.
And the elephant in the room is not lost to the libertarian. The cartels are inhumanly brutal. But governments are not ?
If there is so much money in drugs that cartels can form paramilitaries, govern cities and buy out big wigs in the police force, why not just legalize drugs??
Why not let the drug money be a part of the GDP, let it be taxed, make it legal so that the cartels don't have to hire Sicarios to settle debts, and instead settle it in court? It's not as if liquor stores wage wars that kill more people than the Syrian Civil War.
Because the government is a Cartel. The reason I feel inherently "wrong" being ruled by a government is the same reason a non libertarian feels inherently wrong about being ruled by the cartel. One of them just compartmentalizes their dirty work really well.
If I don't pay my (protection money) taxes, create a competing business (declare independence) or sell products they don't want me to sell (drugs in both cases), I will have hell to pay. Just the thought of being powerless on that axis is disconcerting for me.
I tentatively agree, but with the caveat that a strong drug cartel is a type a government, not that government is a type of cartel. That is, you can governments which are and are not cartels, or an spectrum more or less cartel-like (show me a cartel that lets all of the citizens in their territory vote on their leadership). So it's definitely a noncentral fallacy to say something like "government are like cartels on these metric, cartels are bad, therefore government bad". Which you didn't say outright but appear to be suggesting (please correct me if this is a wrong interpretation of your view).
But as your own post demonstrates by comparing Philadelphia vs Juarez, having a force with a monopoly on violence can create stability and order that otherwise wouldn't exist. If we just abolished governments then everywhere would be like Philadelphia but worse, with various competing gangs violently competing over territory. And any coallition that became powerful enough suppress or unite them would be de-facto a government.
But I think the main distinction here between a good government and a gang-like government-like thing is something like Legitimacy. Which is hard to define perfectly objectively, but is related to the following:
1,) True Monopoly on violence.
If you have five different gangs trying to control the same area, making different rules and overlapping in territory, it's hard to say that any one of them is the true government. Or even one gang (or official government) makes rules but can't enforce them and other people run around doing whatever they want, then this detracts from the legitimacy of the supposed government.
2,) Consistency/Integrity/Honesty.
Laws and processes which are consistent and predictable are much easier to follow and create more order and stability relative to their cost. If someone has a 5% tax imposed on them for thirty years, they can plan around that. They can get a job to earn enough money, save enough, make businesses, that all factor this constant tax into account. If instead you have a dictator or gang that randomly smashes and loots businneses whenever they feel like it, or suddenly doubles taxes on whatever company or businesses they temporarily dislike, then it makes it much harder for citizens to plan ahead and feel secure investing in long-term projects. Similarly, if a new gang replaces the old one every 5 years and changes up all the rules, none of them is especially legitimate. It sort of accrues over time. Or a government which pretends to obey a certain set of rules but blatantly violates them is less legitimate than one which consistently follows its own rules.
3,) Consent of the governed.
This is probably the most important. Obviously, the highest score it would be possible to have on this would be to literally have people sign a social contract in which they agree to allow the government to rule over them in exchange for the government agreeing to various things. Most places don't do this (though I think some charter cities like Prospera are doing this). But we can still get some of this by considering hypothetical questions. Like, if you had a magic button that would cause the government to suddenly vanish, or be replaced by a random or average different government, and presented the button to random citizens, what percent of them would press it? Or, how badly would they want to press it, how much would they pay for the option to press it? How much would they pay to prevent the button from being pressed? A government which does not require the consent of the people because it's powerful enough to force its will on them, but nevertheless has their consent anyway, is more legitimate than one which only forces its will to great protest. Note that this does not require the government to be a Democracy, a Monarchy in which everyone agrees that the Monarch should rule them is still legitimate.
All of this is on a spectrum. No existing government is perfectly legitimate, and any individual who wields a nonzero amount of force could be considered by a tiny government with a tiny amount of legitimacy under this perspective. But usually you'll find one entity, which everyone considers to be "the government", which is orders of magnitude above all of the various gangs and cartels and forces within it. (In cases where there isn't one unique outlier, we call it a "civil war", and it tends to be a temporary arrangement until one faction wins.) Nevertheless, I would argue that governments with high legitimacy, according to this metric, tend to be significantly better, both morally and pragmatically for the people living under them. It is inevitable that someone is going to use force on someone. If you are counting gangs and cartels, then having no government at all is not an option, so pick the best you can. I'd much prefer it be a mostly legitimate government like the one I have now that wants to tax me my entire life rather than some gang with low legitimacy and low time-horizons such which would rather loot my corpse while they're still in power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link