<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The social contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/</link>
	<description>inde vides agilem bella gerentem</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:01:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ron</title>
		<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-511</link>
		<dc:creator>ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:59:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=426#comment-511</guid>
		<description>Interesting..

I think that making the case from first principles for something like socialism is often easier because it is obviously &quot;for&quot; things rather than against them. In contrast as libertarians we often argue that we aren&#039;t interested in what society-the-group tells us to do. I think tribalism is fundamentally appealing to people and that is our problem. We need to argue for the individual rather than against the collective because arguing against that isn&#039;t something we are likely to win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting..</p>
<p>I think that making the case from first principles for something like socialism is often easier because it is obviously &#8220;for&#8221; things rather than against them. In contrast as libertarians we often argue that we aren&#8217;t interested in what society-the-group tells us to do. I think tribalism is fundamentally appealing to people and that is our problem. We need to argue for the individual rather than against the collective because arguing against that isn&#8217;t something we are likely to win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bellagerens</title>
		<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-510</link>
		<dc:creator>bellagerens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=426#comment-510</guid>
		<description>Yes, these things are true. But I&#039;m not interested in ideological purity; the fact that there are different sorts of libertarianism and different sorts of libertarians does not, by and large, cause me to lose sleep. Nor was I thinking of the bloke in the pub who wants smaller government and lower taxes and the ability to smoke with his drink, even though he is obviously a cool guy. &lt;i&gt;I&lt;/i&gt; was thinking about those people who already actively disagree with libertarianism - socialists, statists, whatever you want to call them - not because the regular chap on the street sympathises with them, but because they are winning the war of ideas. And that&#039;s the part of the battle I can help fight. wh00ps informs me that over at Samizdata, they refer to it as the meta-context (or did when discussing it a few weeks ago). When I say that we don&#039;t argue enough from first principles, I&#039;m talking about the battle for the meta-context.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, these things are true. But I&#8217;m not interested in ideological purity; the fact that there are different sorts of libertarianism and different sorts of libertarians does not, by and large, cause me to lose sleep. Nor was I thinking of the bloke in the pub who wants smaller government and lower taxes and the ability to smoke with his drink, even though he is obviously a cool guy. <i>I</i> was thinking about those people who already actively disagree with libertarianism &#8211; socialists, statists, whatever you want to call them &#8211; not because the regular chap on the street sympathises with them, but because they are winning the war of ideas. And that&#8217;s the part of the battle I can help fight. wh00ps informs me that over at Samizdata, they refer to it as the meta-context (or did when discussing it a few weeks ago). When I say that we don&#8217;t argue enough from first principles, I&#8217;m talking about the battle for the meta-context.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian B</title>
		<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-509</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=426#comment-509</guid>
		<description>I agree that we should argue from first principles, but I have come to the conclusion that you cannot prove the correctness of first principles. That does not make them invalid, it just recognises reality. For instance, one of my first principles is that every human has a right to life. I cannot prove this. I cannot prove that it is more efficient, for instance.

I may say that it is a practical first principle, because of mutual protection; if I uphold your right to life, you will uphold mine. But that doesn&#039;t necesssarily hold either. We could adopt the alternate principle that &quot;only Englishmen have a right to life&quot;; Englishmen will then offer each other mutual protection, but we can invade Wales and kill the Welsh and steal their land and stuff and derive great benefit. This principle is actually more beneficial to me than the universalist one.

Libertarians spend a lot of time in pointless circular and furious argument; I think that there&#039;s a Godwin type law that all libertarian discussions if suffiiciently long, will eventually devolved to an argument either about Anarcho-Capitalism or Land Value Tax, regardless of what they started off being about. Our marginalised status means we spend much of our time seeking ideological purity, like a bunch of Trots huddled round a table in a pub clutching copies of Socialist Worker and arguing furiously about &lt;i&gt;what&lt;/i&gt; they will do &lt;i&gt;when&lt;/i&gt; the revolution comes, regardless of the fact that it never will and endlessly ejecting each other from their various societies for ideological incorrectness.

In reality, most &quot;libertarians&quot; are just sick to death of the state interfering with us and just wish it would fuck off and leave us alone, and would be quite content, in truth, with just a &lt;i&gt;smaller&lt;/i&gt; government and &lt;i&gt;fewer&lt;/i&gt; stupid laws and the right to sit in the pub and smoke a ciggie again. We really just need to foster more of that general feeling in the population at large, to emphasise that they are individuals (&quot;I&#039;m not!&quot;) and thus should have some kind of rights not to be strip searched and anally probed in the high street for photographing a post box. If we can stir some sufficiency of that general feeling among our fellows that leads them to demand freedom instead of restraint from the political parties, we&#039;ll have started to win the battle. What we&#039;re fighting for is a change of political direction. Where that ultimately leads, at this stage, isn&#039;t really that important.

It does bother me that somebody on the verge of losing their faith in socialism/conservatism, wandering into the blogosphere, and finding libertarianism as this extreme thing full of arguments about ideological purity may be rather put off. A person just wanting lower taxes and the freedom to smoke may not want to leap into bed with radical anarchists, kind of thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that we should argue from first principles, but I have come to the conclusion that you cannot prove the correctness of first principles. That does not make them invalid, it just recognises reality. For instance, one of my first principles is that every human has a right to life. I cannot prove this. I cannot prove that it is more efficient, for instance.</p>
<p>I may say that it is a practical first principle, because of mutual protection; if I uphold your right to life, you will uphold mine. But that doesn&#8217;t necesssarily hold either. We could adopt the alternate principle that &#8220;only Englishmen have a right to life&#8221;; Englishmen will then offer each other mutual protection, but we can invade Wales and kill the Welsh and steal their land and stuff and derive great benefit. This principle is actually more beneficial to me than the universalist one.</p>
<p>Libertarians spend a lot of time in pointless circular and furious argument; I think that there&#8217;s a Godwin type law that all libertarian discussions if suffiiciently long, will eventually devolved to an argument either about Anarcho-Capitalism or Land Value Tax, regardless of what they started off being about. Our marginalised status means we spend much of our time seeking ideological purity, like a bunch of Trots huddled round a table in a pub clutching copies of Socialist Worker and arguing furiously about <i>what</i> they will do <i>when</i> the revolution comes, regardless of the fact that it never will and endlessly ejecting each other from their various societies for ideological incorrectness.</p>
<p>In reality, most &#8220;libertarians&#8221; are just sick to death of the state interfering with us and just wish it would fuck off and leave us alone, and would be quite content, in truth, with just a <i>smaller</i> government and <i>fewer</i> stupid laws and the right to sit in the pub and smoke a ciggie again. We really just need to foster more of that general feeling in the population at large, to emphasise that they are individuals (&#8220;I&#8217;m not!&#8221;) and thus should have some kind of rights not to be strip searched and anally probed in the high street for photographing a post box. If we can stir some sufficiency of that general feeling among our fellows that leads them to demand freedom instead of restraint from the political parties, we&#8217;ll have started to win the battle. What we&#8217;re fighting for is a change of political direction. Where that ultimately leads, at this stage, isn&#8217;t really that important.</p>
<p>It does bother me that somebody on the verge of losing their faith in socialism/conservatism, wandering into the blogosphere, and finding libertarianism as this extreme thing full of arguments about ideological purity may be rather put off. A person just wanting lower taxes and the freedom to smoke may not want to leap into bed with radical anarchists, kind of thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-508</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=426#comment-508</guid>
		<description>Obvious point, perhaps, but let&#039;s not forget there&#039;s a very considerable left-libertarian tradition opposed to economic specialisation.

Adam Smith thought government should prevent its worst effects (including waste of talent), but it&#039;s not very difficult to see how such arrangements could be made in line with libertarian principles.

&quot;In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently only one or two. ...The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. ...His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. ...this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obvious point, perhaps, but let&#8217;s not forget there&#8217;s a very considerable left-libertarian tradition opposed to economic specialisation.</p>
<p>Adam Smith thought government should prevent its worst effects (including waste of talent), but it&#8217;s not very difficult to see how such arrangements could be made in line with libertarian principles.</p>
<p>&#8220;In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently only one or two. &#8230;The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. &#8230;His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. &#8230;this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sconzey</title>
		<link>http://bellagerens.com/2009/08/27/the-social-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator>sconzey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=426#comment-507</guid>
		<description>Very interesting, reminds me of the Seasteading Institute&#039;s master lease for their sovereign offshore platform/cruise ship &quot;ClubStead&quot;.

http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/ClubStead_Master_Lease</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting, reminds me of the Seasteading Institute&#8217;s master lease for their sovereign offshore platform/cruise ship &#8220;ClubStead&#8221;.</p>
<p><a href="http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/ClubStead_Master_Lease" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/ClubStead_Master_Lease</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

