A Conflict of Visions

[Aim64C]

I will explain the difference between the Constrained and the Unconstrained vision of humanity.

Unconstrained:

Humans are inherently virtuous and peaceful. There is no inherent reason for them to be unhappy and instances where they are unhappy is due to a set of situations and institutions that have been imposed upon them. Mankind, thus, must be liberated from the influence of social and institutional systems that are merely recent constructs that interfere with man's nature.

Some quotes from those who represent the Unconstrained view of humanity:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

This generally defines the Unconstrained Vision of humanity.

Constrained:

Human beings are born with an inherently flawed nature. These flaws, while inherent, are shared amongst all human beings and we can, therefore, teach ourselves and erect institutions under which we can achieve better living conditions. It is through the process of evaluating the performance of these institutions by which we can conserve the power of these institutions to prevent abuses and enable prosperity.

Some quotes that would represent the Constrained View of humanity:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

This generally defines the Constrained View of humanity.

............................

So, it is at this point that I request you submit your vote based upon which you believe best describes your view of human beings.

Those of you who are familiar with me can probably guess which one I am - but that can be a discussion for below.

It is difficult to find a video that merely presents both points without actually launching into a review of the visions against history. One of the more lengthy discussions, if you are interested can be found:

Spoiler

[video=youtube;OGvYqaxSPp4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvYqaxSPp4[/video]

I'm curious to see where this goes.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

Constrained. But I like the flaws of humanity. Makes things interesting

 

[Multiply]

Constrained. U_U.

If I may ask, which have you chosen?

 

[GhostProject]

Unconstrained. Systems only bring us freedom by bringing down the previous systems, and before we know it that very system and its people have been exploited. Sustained anarchy doesn't exist, but all empires must fall once good men have a reason to act.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Unconstrained, I voted constrained though on accident sorry.

 

[Aim64C]

Constrained. U_U.

If I may ask, which have you chosen?

Constrained.

Unconstrained. Systems only bring us freedom by bringing down the previous systems, and before we know it that very system and its people have been exploited. Sustained anarchy doesn't exist, but all empires must fall once good men have a reason to act.

This is not necessarily the Unconstrained vision.

For example - I am, ideologically, an anarchist.

This does not mean that I believe man to be inherently virtuous. It is because man is inherently flawed that I believe there is no arbitrary power/authority structure that can be established that will not become inherently abusive.

No matter what laws are written, no matter what agreements signed - the moment people are arbitrarily given the authority to deprive you of the fruits of your labor and to assign, based upon their own values, where the fruits of your labor go - then that system will ultimately attract the most vile of people for their twisted ambitions.

However.

The flaws of human beings are still present. We created societies for a reason. We have a concept of property rights for a reason. It is not from your benevolence that I can expect anything to be done for me - but by our mutual regard to our own self interest. Rephrasing the words of Adam Smith - Human beings are unlike any other animal on the planet. Dog's don't trade each other one bone for another.

It is our intelligence that allows us to realize that benefit can be had from things outside of direct acquisition. We realize that we can trade to get what we want rather than go through the hassle of fighting someone until we can claim what he/she has laid claim to.

We have created such things as religion to establish a concept of morality and spiritualism for a sense of place and purpose. These institutions - while not free of faults, themselves, exist to help temper the flaws of the individual. As Aristotle noted - the ideal man handles the accident of life with dignity. To Aristotle - it required discipline and temperament for an individual to behave in an ideal manner. These things were not inherent to our nature, but acquired through lesson and effort.

Therefor - while I do not believe religions should have -control- over society; I believe they are necessary institutions.

Similarly, just because I do not believe we should have an arbitrary governing authority (by democratic election or otherwise) does not mean I do not believe the functions a government is erected to fulfill can be ignored.

The reason people join society, as Adam Smith put it, is to protect their person and property from the theft and violence of others. We join into society because we have all come to the agreement not to steal from each other or coerce each other. We also recognize that the people who we seek protection from within society need to be met with force (or they will just do the same thing to all of society). Thus the concept of laws, criminal justice, and law enforcement.

Because larger cities need a way to fund these things, there comes the concept of taxes. Because all in society theoretically benefit from the institution of government - it is reasoned that all must pay taxes according to some metric. Be it sales, income, or property... or all three... it is not long that any government soon reasons all citizens are indebted to it.

I believe the answer is far more simple. Rather than establishing a government that is given arbitrary power to decide what is and isn't a crime, what is and isn't worthy of being taxed, and what someone does or doesn't owe... the private market place can provide all of these things through the concept of insurance.

We already pay insurance companies to insure us against loss in the event of a theft. If we were to remove the government from the equation - an insurance company would then have two choices - continue paying out to areas that saw high crime rates or - hire security personnel to prevent theft.

Crime would be largely handled through bounties. Part of the reason for joining an insurance company (of which there would be quite a few) would be for negotiation of bounties. Filing a report of a crime sets a bounty on that crime. Being cited for breaking the rules established by a private business or infrastructure (such as a privately owned highway) would be negotiated by insurance companies.

The relative economic impact/risk of the offense would be represented by the bounty. Rather than being fined $100 for jaywalking because the city council doesn't want to increase the police department's budget; private security and investigative teams select from bounties in the area on reports of crimes and destructive behavior and seek to fill them to satisfy their budget. If the bounties aren't there - the need for law enforcement isn't there.

Jails would be expensive systems to maintain and would largely exist for temporary detainment. Individuals who were exceptionally dangerous would very likely be killed in the course of filling the bounty and would not be necessary to detain for 20 years at society's expense.

Insurance companies that didn't provide services that people wanted would never receive money from people. Insurance companies that suddenly decided to demand more money would find themselves in competition with other insurance companies that can produce the same protection for less cost to the customer.

In the end - the highest bidding competitor to the market is the cost of assuming risk, individually. Individuals always have the right to assume the risk, themselves. They do not -have- to join an insurance company and some people would opt to get out of an insurance company simply because of the way it treats people or the methods it uses. People could, therefor "choose their government."

Likewise - since insurance companies have no means by which to force individuals to pay into their plans, they are completely subject to the willingness of people to spend money on the plans they offer.

While insurance companies would not be stable entities. New ones would come into the market, old ones would fragment or die out of the market... the system could achieve "metastable" status. Unlike governments - which must go through fixed cycles of oppression, revolution, and affluence.

My argument is not that governments necessarily -cause- suffering, but that governments inherently hold an amount of power that will inevitably be used in such ways that suffering results. This occurs at any level of society and at any level of humanity. From the thug who realizes that he can club someone over the head and spare himself the effort of picking berries to the thug who realizes he can chant "tax the rich" and spare himself the need to reorganize the budget to make room for construction of the monument to himself.

It's all the same mentality. The question is how to contain - to constrain - that mentality and protect society from its influence.

 

[GhostProject]

Constrained.



This is not necessarily the Unconstrained vision.

For example - I am, ideologically, an anarchist.

This does not mean that I believe man to be inherently virtuous. It is because man is inherently flawed that I believe there is no arbitrary power/authority structure that can be established that will not become inherently abusive.

No matter what laws are written, no matter what agreements signed - the moment people are arbitrarily given the authority to deprive you of the fruits of your labor and to assign, based upon their own values, where the fruits of your labor go - then that system will ultimately attract the most vile of people for their twisted ambitions.

However.

The flaws of human beings are still present. We created societies for a reason. We have a concept of property rights for a reason. It is not from your benevolence that I can expect anything to be done for me - but by our mutual regard to our own self interest. Rephrasing the words of Adam Smith - Human beings are unlike any other animal on the planet. Dog's don't trade each other one bone for another.

It is our intelligence that allows us to realize that benefit can be had from things outside of direct acquisition. We realize that we can trade to get what we want rather than go through the hassle of fighting someone until we can claim what he/she has laid claim to.

We have created such things as religion to establish a concept of morality and spiritualism for a sense of place and purpose. These institutions - while not free of faults, themselves, exist to help temper the flaws of the individual. As Aristotle noted - the ideal man handles the accident of life with dignity. To Aristotle - it required discipline and temperament for an individual to behave in an ideal manner. These things were not inherent to our nature, but acquired through lesson and effort.

Therefor - while I do not believe religions should have -control- over society; I believe they are necessary institutions.

Similarly, just because I do not believe we should have an arbitrary governing authority (by democratic election or otherwise) does not mean I do not believe the functions a government is erected to fulfill can be ignored.

The reason people join society, as Adam Smith put it, is to protect their person and property from the theft and violence of others. We join into society because we have all come to the agreement not to steal from each other or coerce each other. We also recognize that the people who we seek protection from within society need to be met with force (or they will just do the same thing to all of society). Thus the concept of laws, criminal justice, and law enforcement.

Because larger cities need a way to fund these things, there comes the concept of taxes. Because all in society theoretically benefit from the institution of government - it is reasoned that all must pay taxes according to some metric. Be it sales, income, or property... or all three... it is not long that any government soon reasons all citizens are indebted to it.

I believe the answer is far more simple. Rather than establishing a government that is given arbitrary power to decide what is and isn't a crime, what is and isn't worthy of being taxed, and what someone does or doesn't owe... the private market place can provide all of these things through the concept of insurance.

We already pay insurance companies to insure us against loss in the event of a theft. If we were to remove the government from the equation - an insurance company would then have two choices - continue paying out to areas that saw high crime rates or - hire security personnel to prevent theft.

Crime would be largely handled through bounties. Part of the reason for joining an insurance company (of which there would be quite a few) would be for negotiation of bounties. Filing a report of a crime sets a bounty on that crime. Being cited for breaking the rules established by a private business or infrastructure (such as a privately owned highway) would be negotiated by insurance companies.

The relative economic impact/risk of the offense would be represented by the bounty. Rather than being fined $100 for jaywalking because the city council doesn't want to increase the police department's budget; private security and investigative teams select from bounties in the area on reports of crimes and destructive behavior and seek to fill them to satisfy their budget. If the bounties aren't there - the need for law enforcement isn't there.

Jails would be expensive systems to maintain and would largely exist for temporary detainment. Individuals who were exceptionally dangerous would very likely be killed in the course of filling the bounty and would not be necessary to detain for 20 years at society's expense.

Insurance companies that didn't provide services that people wanted would never receive money from people. Insurance companies that suddenly decided to demand more money would find themselves in competition with other insurance companies that can produce the same protection for less cost to the customer.

In the end - the highest bidding competitor to the market is the cost of assuming risk, individually. Individuals always have the right to assume the risk, themselves. They do not -have- to join an insurance company and some people would opt to get out of an insurance company simply because of the way it treats people or the methods it uses. People could, therefor "choose their government."

Likewise - since insurance companies have no means by which to force individuals to pay into their plans, they are completely subject to the willingness of people to spend money on the plans they offer.

While insurance companies would not be stable entities. New ones would come into the market, old ones would fragment or die out of the market... the system could achieve "metastable" status. Unlike governments - which must go through fixed cycles of oppression, revolution, and affluence.

My argument is not that governments necessarily -cause- suffering, but that governments inherently hold an amount of power that will inevitably be used in such ways that suffering results. This occurs at any level of society and at any level of humanity. From the thug who realizes that he can club someone over the head and spare himself the effort of picking berries to the thug who realizes he can chant "tax the rich" and spare himself the need to reorganize the budget to make room for construction of the monument to himself.

It's all the same mentality. The question is how to contain - to constrain - that mentality and protect society from its influence.

Pretty much. Honestly some humans are constrained and others are unconstrained in my opinion, it's not a black and white split. I am of the personal view that unconstrained is the general rule, but that's not to say that some people aren't just inherently evil. Systems enable the worst of people to do evil, but organization is necessary to reach the most efficient and peaceful of times.

I think the latter is more of the reason why systems and governments exist, which I think says a lot about human nature.

 

[Yubel]

It's both but I find it stupid to claim a society doesn't soothe a man's nature when it's merely a way for humans to coexist. Almost all predatory animals in the wild have their own territory marked where any outsider is met with force. Maybe the social structure can be flawed like capitalism but the idea of a civilization is nothing more than building on an idea. Throughout time we've become more and more connected, the only thing left is to unite all countries into one.