fayfreethinkers.com

Barbara wrote:Greed will not be done away with by getting rid of the one force that has the power to control it, even if at the moment it isn't doing its job.

Where did that come from? The subject is fossil fuel scarcity, not greed. I have nothing at all against greed (aka rational self-interest). I think it's a virtue. (Cf: "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand).

The main difference in our approches is this: I prefer solutions based on voluntary human action and free individual choice; you prefer solutions based on government plunder and political decision-making. I prefer the pluralistic experimentation of the market, may the best ideas win out; you prefer political elites to make the decisions based on their limited information and special interest pandering. May I remind you that everything the government does turns to shit?

The main difference between our beliefs is that I neither idealize nor demonize government OR individual action, but see both good and bad in both. I do my small possible to balance the two for both the common and the individual good. But then, I have worked for good government programs in my life, and conversely known people who lied, cheated, and stole to get what they wanted to the detriment of the legal owner - and people who are so disconnected from reality that they did whatever they wanted, even if it put them in the hospital 2 hours later. (Statistically the latter type make up less than 10% of the general population, but that's enough to cause real problems for the rest of us, if they have inherited a large amount of money, and therefore, power. I take some comfort in the fact that statiscally the people who do the right thing because it's right, and look for ways to make money from doing the right thing - rather than making money and not giving a horse's rearend about right - make up 20% of the general population. Unfortunately, the rest (over 70%) will only do what's right as long as nobody makes fun of them for doing it.)

Barbara wrote:The main difference between our beliefs is that I neither idealize nor demonize government OR individual action, but see both good and bad in both.

I think the main difference is that I have a rather clear-cut criteria to judge human action from an ethical perspective. I agree with you that individual action can be good or bad, but I go further and know why any particular conduct is good or bad. The critical ethical consideration is: aggression. The principle: The NAP - non-aggression principle. In the civilized ethical environment (as opposed to e.g. "lifeboat situations") human conduct which aggresses is wrong.

Let's apply the NAP to human organizations. Many types of organizations can be aggressive or non-aggressive, e.g. chess clubs and freethinkers clubs and grocery stores and software firms. There is nothing in the definition of "software firm" which specifies whether it is aggressive or not. Other organizations might by definition imply non-aggression, e.g. Nonviolence.org. And there are some organizations which are aggressive by definition: e.g. a rape gang. The State ("government") is aggressive by definition, like a rape gang. (Recall that a government is an organization with an effective monopoly on the legal use of force in a particular geographic area.) The only way to maintain such a monopoly is by aggression, and the way such monopolies are funded is by plunder. If a "government" ceases taxation and allows people to opt out, it is no longer a government.

Back to Barbara's characterization, she is mistaken that I idolize individual action. Some individual action is clearly bad (e.g. aggressive action), while other individual action is permissable (non-aggressive action.) What actions are good depends on numerous additional factors. This position is hardly idealizing individual action.

Here's how I would characterize the difference between Barbara political beliefs and mine: While Barbara and I share a moral aversion to aggression on a personal level, I consistently extend the NAP to all people and all organizations. Barbara let's a certain organization, the State, have a "free pass" when it comes to aggression. To her, and statists in general, the State is a super-moral entity that need not adhere to civilized standards of morality. It may gain revenues through plunder (Newspeak: "tax") and command people through threat of imprisonment, dispossession, or death (Newspeak: "regulation".) She considers this extra-moral entity to be a good thing; I consider it to be downright evil, for all the same reasons individual aggression is evil.