Extreme deification of the armed forces..

[vcs]

I would say many people would pay their taxes even if they disagree with the concept of taxation, and even if they were living in a country where the worst that may happen to you is progressively bigger bills, or bad press (assuming a country where tax evasion couldn't possibly put you behind bars, I'm not sure what the actual penalties are in every country). Getting hate from everyone else who's fulfilling a "social contract" of sorts, while you refuse to, wouldn't be worth it to most people IMO, even if they disagreed with it on principle.

 

[Ausage]

The end game of not paying taxes is definitely getting dragged away at the point of a gun.

 

[Prince EWS]

The end game of not paying taxes is definitely getting dragged away at the point of a gun.

Yeah this is true with basically any law.

If they try to extort money from you (through either "taxes" or "fines") and you don't roll over to the extortion, they invite you to court. If you decline the invitation they'll send thugs over with guns to drag you away and lock you in a cage (for "contempt"), and if you try to defend yourself at this point you'll eat lead. This is why people just roll over to the extortion.

It's okay to see this process as necessary for the functioning of society or whatever else, but I do think it's important to see what this process is and swallow it whole if you're going to do that, for it should at least give you some perspective about what laws are really worth this implicit threat and which maybe don't quite justify it. It's not just peaceful cooperation under a social contract; it's a systematic apparatus of violence and threats of violence, whether you see this as good or bad.

If the consequences for not following laws or social conventions really were just shaming and disassociation that'd be ****ing awesome; that's actually precisely what I'm advocating for. It's not even close to true anywhere the state exists though.

 

[sledger]

Definitely not true about India - the Prime Minister has far more power than the Army Chief.

Way to miss the point.

 

[weldone]

Way to miss the point.

Way to not address my point raised in the very next post.

 

[Ausage]

Way to not address my point raised in the very next post.

No, sledgers post adequately addressed both posts in one.

 

[sledger]

No, sledgers post adequately addressed both posts in one.

Haha yeah, Weld One basically (and completely obliviously) QED'd your initial point.

 

[weldone]

Nope. I don't believe in Mao Tse Tung's philosophy of power coming from the barrel of a gun. Weirdly that's one thing the extreme left and the extreme right would agree on.

 

[sledger]

Nope. I don't believe in Mao Tse Tung's philosophy of power coming from the barrel of a gun. Guess that's one thing the extreme left and extreme right would agree on.

How exactly?

 

[weldone]

Politicians often don't carry a gun, but their personal security guards do.

Army Chiefs don't often carry a gun, but the army-men working for them do.

Underworld dons don't often carry a gun, but people working under them do.

From the above examples it should be clear that power does not come from the barrel of a gun, power comes from your ability to brain-wash others to such an extent that they are ready to risk their lives for you.

 

[Spark]

I think that theory of how laws work, whilst fine at a basic level, massively understates the role that social pressure and civic culture has on whether laws are actually followed. You just have to compare a country like Switzerland to a country like, say, Greece to demonstrate that the willingness to follow laws depends on far more than the willingness of the police to shoot you if you resist.

But the main problem with “they share this basic characteristic and therefore they’re basically the same” is that it’s tankie logic, which is why I was surprised.

 

[sledger]

Politicians often don't carry a gun, but their personal security guards do.

Army Chiefs don't often carry a gun, but the army-men working for them do.

Underworld dons don't often carry a gun, but people working under them do.

From the above examples it should be clear that power does not come from the barrel of a gun, power comes from your ability to brain-wash others to such an extent that they are ready to risk their lives for you.

Um. All these examples just back up Ausage's point.

In all of these situations, you take away the people with guns, and the power is gone.

 

[Spark]

Um. All these examples just back up Ausage's point.

In all of these situations, you take away the people with guns, and the power is gone.

Yeah but... how exactly do you take away the people.with guns? What sort of institution would be required to do so?

 

[sledger]

I think that theory of how laws work, whilst fine at a basic level, massively understates the role that social pressure and civic culture has on whether laws are actually followed. You just have to compare a country like Switzerland to a country like, say, Greece to demonstrate that the willingness to follow laws depends on far more than the willingness of the police to shoot you if you resist.

But the main problem with “they share this basic characteristic and therefore they’re basically the same” is that it’s tankie logic, which is why I was surprised.

The truth is somewhere in the middle imo.

However, without taking away the threat of enforcement/guns etc. there is no real way to assess how much of an influence social norms have.

 

[sledger]

Yeah but... how exactly do you take away the people.with guns? What sort of institution would be required to do so?

An institution that lets everyone have guns

Anyway, on a more serious note, it's not really a question of how you can take away the people with guns. Just that there is no power without guns.

 

[Spark]

The truth is somewhere in the middle imo.

However, without taking away the threat of enforcement/guns etc. there is no real way to assess how much of an influence social norms have.

I think there is at a local level IMO, in your classic small town community. The sanction imposed by the community upon you if you transgress its norms - not even laws - is incredibly high, in practice no different from a very onerous fine, yet it’s not typically enforced primarily through your neighbours holding a gun to your head if you don’t agree.

There are ways to threaten people in very serious ways without resorting to physical harm.

 

[weldone]

In all of these situations, you take away the people with guns, and the power is gone.

Sure. But it does not make 'people with guns' more powerful. People with guns are always less powerful than the people they are working for.

Edit: except in Pakistan

 

[sledger]

Sure. But it does not make 'people with guns' more powerful. People with guns are always less powerful than the people they are working for.

Edit: except in Pakistan

Until they turn those guns on the people they are working for. Which is entirely the point Ausage is making.

 

[sledger]

I think there is at a local level IMO, in your classic small town community. The sanction imposed by the community upon you if you transgress its norms - not even laws - is incredibly high, in practice no different from a very onerous fine, yet it’s not typically enforced primarily through your neighbours holding a gun to your head if you don’t agree.

There are ways to threaten people in very serious ways without resorting to physical harm.

Sounds like the ramblings of a utopian libertarian!

 

[Spark]

Sounds like the ramblings of a utopian libertarian!

Haha it’s not an endorsement ftr. For one thing these are ****ing horrible places to live if you happen to be in anyway outside the strict social hierarchy or archetype that these places inevitably develop if they are to sustain themselves, typically through the rigid application of religious law. And also this stops really working once you have enough people living there to make living there actually an attractive proposition for most rational humans.

If this is the libertarian utopia, then I would much rather the statist dystopia because these places mostly suck.

I mostly agree with your “somewhere in the middle” and “hard to measure” post ftr. My main point is that the theoretical explanation, whilst neat, doesn’t actually really explain what we see in the real world that well. There are lots and lots of other factors that enter into the equation when it comes to whether people follow laws or not (a good example of this is why people follow religious laws)