| HN Mirror

I think this is a great example of a second-order disagreement.

How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state? They often believe in charitable giving and local community organization, in my experience. Maximal civil society vs maximal government. A good example of this type is people who believe in the ideas laid out in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Even the more hard line Von Mises types are close to this. There are disgruntled people who are just asocial in that camp, like any other, but they are over emphasized by opponents just like every political group.

It would be very hard to argue that Nozick wasn't someone concerned with advancing society. The difference for that type is just a strong disagreement about how to do so. Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

> How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state?

I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here. Even so, the idea that everyone gets to choose themselves what the issues are, belies a lack of unity and community that is close to what I'm trying to define. To respect society, one must give up an aspect of control.

Again, its not about tax in general, its the desire to get to 0% that is indicative of the sort of selfishness that defines the line I'm trying to draw.

> Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

You might be right. I think the bigger problem definitely are those who think stealing public money is ok to do.

> I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here.

I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as sort of side-line sitters. They're a neutral party who genuinely want to mostly opt out for one reason or another. I don't think that taking a stance of them either being with us or against us is healthy when there are so many genuinely destructive people.

> Even so, the idea that everyone gets to choose themselves what the issues are, belies a lack of unity and community that is close to what I'm trying to define. To respect society, one must give up an aspect of control.

Interesting. I'm curious what you mean here, as this could point a lot of different directions. Are you saying that you don't think individualism is healthy in general?

Do you mean that broad disunity and lack of alignment on societal values is dangerous? If so, I totally agree with that and wonder how it can be squared with modern multi-cultural pluralistic society. I don't, personally, believe in enforcing ideological conformity, but struggle to see how a society that doesn't believe in shared underlying mores can coordinate itself and have shared purpose.

> I think the bigger problem definitely are those who think stealing public money is ok to do.

No disagreement, and I think that's a good starting point. Those plundering the commons for personal gain are pretty clearly first-order opponents.

> I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as sort of side-line sitters. They're a neutral party who genuinely want to mostly opt out for one reason or another. I don't think that taking a stance of them either being with us or against us is healthy when there are so many genuinely destructive people.

I agree in principle, although there is a slight harmful component to it that I think is best described in defence (now WAR) spending. This is perhaps an element of taxation that most people do not see a direct benefit from, but in the scenario where they do suddenly need it, but don't have it, they lose absolutely everything. Its almost akin to the parental demand that a child eat its vegetables where the child doesn't see the point.

> Interesting. I'm curious what you mean here, as this could point a lot of different directions. Are you saying that you don't think individualism is healthy in general?

No, I think it is healthy but we also have to accept that we live in a society so that individualism must be tempered with a modicum of respect for others. We take much of this for granted, such as not murdering each other. Thankfully we are beyond the point where somebody takes to the air to decry their inability to arbitrary kill other people as some sort of government oppression.

I feel like part of the abstract of a more model citizen is accepting that sometimes society will do things that you don't necessarily agree with. For me there has to be some level of acceptance of this with arguments about ratios being entirely acceptable. I'm content for people to make that argument that tax cuts to 0.1% are okay if they result in the sort of growth where that 0.1% can actually cover the problem solving fund, but you have to accept that to some extent.

For example I live on the ground floor of an apartment block and would be insane for me to lobby our management firm to defund the elevator, which I partly pay for, despite never needing it. I accept that the elevator is part of my society of appartment block, despite it not directly benefitting me in the slightest.

I do agree that preppers/anarchists/von-mises are hardly the most destructive people out there, however their entirely individualistic attitudes do hold a parallel with those who think robbing the commons is ok. Especially since the whole "taxation is theft" idea creates a imbalance where robbing the commons is just redressing that balance. But I agree that we might be too zoomed in here to have the sort of impact we might hope for.

> I think is best described in defence (now WAR) spending

Yes, certainly. Security is actually the point "minimal state" (Nozick) crowd agree we need, which is why I pointed to them as opposed to the Von Mises hard liners. I see your point about the argument against this being harmful.

> I do agree that preppers are hardly the most destructive people out there, however their entirely individualistic attitudes do hold a parallel with those who think robbing the commons is ok.

Sure, I think I see the point you're making. I disagree with it partly, but it's a quibble and not really the point we're discussing, I think.

> I feel like part of the abstract of a more model citizen is accepting that sometimes society will do things that you don't necessarily agree with.

Yes, this is the heart of Social Contract theory. We agree we're going to give up some amount of control of our own lives and freedom in exchange for greater security and prosperity. Maybe that's a good lens to look at the original delineation we painted through. First-order opponents are violating that core Social Contract agreement by looting the commons. Second-order opponents adhere to the SC, but disagree with how we proceed within the agreement.

nradov 280 days ago

You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems. Is that really true or are there better approaches? I think government has a role to play but often it overreaches, causing negative second-order effects and wasting tax money. For example, in the USA government subsidized student loans were intended to make higher education more accessible to deserving low-income students. But in practice we now see a lot of students going to college who don't really belong there just because they can finance it, and much of the money goes into the pockets of useless administrators who contribute nothing to actual education. So naturally taxpayers are skeptical about turning over even more money to the government.

> You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems.

I would suggest that the context of government is superior than the context of the individual or localised groups in solving issues in a fair and just manner, as long as its institutions are well balanced. That's because it has a national perspective as opposed to a localised one. In practice there is a balance at play that is necessary, I think there is arguably a tyranny in only one of these two choices. The principal issue with giving up on the federal level is that minorities will be disadvantaged.

jorgen123 280 days ago

I think you are downvoted because your first sentence is misinterpreted, or the rest of your argument is not being read?

You are giving an example of a position and later on discussing the people who have this position as their first and main principle. Seems like a valid example to me, but perhaps people can explain why not.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I disagree with this portion of the point he's making, but I don't see why people would treat it as not being valuable to the conversation at hand. I think it actually highlights the point of disagreement really well.

can you help me find a more poignant first-order disagreement to use? Perhaps my social democratic context is picking the wrong abstract in order to isolate a better platform of co-operation. In Europe we generally think that universal healthcare is somewhat of a given which sets up the context. In the UK at least (where I am from) belief in the NHS (national health service) is pretty much a political no-brainer.

I think you hit on it quite well with you statement about stealing public money in your parallel comment, which I generalized to simply "plundering the commons for personal gain". I have no idea why people would downvote the argument, but I think discussing that is generally frowned upon on HN.