[quote]Vegita wrote:
It is more moral because you are never interfering with someones freedom and no one is interfering with yours. [/quote]
Why are you talking about one particular value, as if it is the only value that exists? Sometimes, values come into conflict, and it takes maturity and consideration to determine how to best balance them based on the particular situation.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Compared to those in Africa, I’m willing to bet that you are extremely “rich”, it would be for the “greater good” if you were divested of all your wealth, and maintained only a subsistence lifestyle, your wealth could be funneled towards more human beings, and thus the greater good is established. You rich selfish bastard.[/quote]
Agree 100%. It’s not a black and white issue, where you can unilaterally apply one value above all other values, without weighing the relative merits and outcomes of each value. That math is going to vary from one person to the next.
My point is that people should take any extreme position with a large grain of salt. Saying that Value X is supreme, holy, and superior to ALL other values, regardless of the situation and circumstances, is not always going to produce the most moral outcome.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But if you allow aggression even once you are saying it is okay in any circumstance because how does one justify it in one case but not any other.
If you allow for aggression specifically to tax people then you allow for your own property to be robbed by anyone. Consistency matters.
Aggression is either good in all circumstances or it isn’t good at all. There is no in between. You can call that fanaticism and I am fine with it.[/quote]
No, it merely says that aggression takes a lower priority to other values in that particular situation, given the conditions at hand.
Why are you acting as if the judicial system is based on only one value? It’s not. It is comprised of many values, and those values are frequently pitted against one another to determine the most just and fair outcome given the unique circumstances of the case.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But if you allow aggression even once you are saying it is okay in any circumstance because how does one justify it in one case but not any other.
If you allow for aggression specifically to tax people then you allow for your own property to be robbed by anyone. Consistency matters.
Aggression is either good in all circumstances or it isn’t good at all. There is no in between. You can call that fanaticism and I am fine with it.
No, it merely says that aggression takes a lower priority to other values in that particular situation, given the conditions at hand.
Why are you acting as if the judicial system is based on only one value? It’s not. It is comprised of many values, and those values are frequently pitted against one another to determine the most just and fair outcome given the unique circumstances of the case.[/quote]
Actually, aggression is the only means by which all just laws in our judicial system are determined.
Murder, rape, theft, coercion, fraud, vandalism, kidnapping, etc…these are all categories of aggressive behavior.
But you bring up a point that is very troublesome. You keep talking about values and you have no understanding that values are subjective but actions are not. The law is based on actions not values precisely because there is no way to objectively measure values.
This means that aggression can never be justified. You cannot allow for it in one case and then say it is wrong in an other case because there is no determiner to do so. Utilitarianism has tried repeatedly and failed.
[quote]Unaware wrote:
I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest that every single penny taxed from Mr. Gates goes towards “saving lives”. In fact I would wager a very small fraction of the tax revenue form Mr. Gates actually “saves lives”; Certainly the tax revenue saves far less lives than his foundation. [/quote]
I never suggested otherwise. What I said was that removing the taxes specifically due to “saving lives” does not guarantee that Gates would then use every penny of those taxes to “save lives” by supplementing his very generous altruistic programs that already exist. It’s likely that it wouldn’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It is more moral because you are never interfering with someones freedom and no one is interfering with yours.
Why are you talking about one particular value, as if it is the only value that exists? Sometimes, values come into conflict, and it takes maturity and consideration to determine how to best balance them based on the particular situation.[/quote]
A moral is not a value, you are arguing apples and oranges. Free will is something that cannot be TAKEN away from someone, it has to be given up by the person. It can be requested by non-violent or violent ways, but ultimately, a person can refuse to give up thier free will. You can ask me to drive you to the bar and pick you back up. Thats a non-violent request, I have a choice, if I say no, you can try to make me feel guilty, like Oh what a great friend you are, I’ll just drive myself then and hopefully I don’t get a DWI or kill someone. Thats non-violent also, but you are trying to force me to do something against my will. However I still have the option to say no. Most likley I am going to give you the ride, but still I have the choice to make. Now say you pull a gun on me and say, give me a ride to the bar and pick me up or I will shoot you. Now I still have a choice, but it is between driving you to the bar and getting shot. So you have not taken away my free will, though you have tried, you have literally only narrowed my options to two things. One thing is easy, the other thing is hard and extreme. But who is wrong in this situation? Even though it is a good thing to do for me to give you a ride to the bar, I mean after all, I am preventing you from hurting someone by driving drunk, but are you right in forcing me to do something trivial for the greater good?
You are arguing good vs bad values. Say a robber steals an old ladys purse. You would say that is wrong correct? Well what if the robber has 6 children to feed, can’t find a job, and has targeted the richest old woman in town. She has a couple hundred dollars in her purse but has millions in the bank. Are his actions now wrong? These are values. A Moral is an absolute. You don’t interfere with someones free will period, you can’t, you can try, but ultimately it is thier life and thier decision, if you give them options, they may choose violence and death over what you want them to do.
The robber is in the wrong 100% of the time according to morals, in a good vs bad value system, some people would say he is in the right, while others would say he is wrong. This division is where conflict on a massive scale comes in. What Lifty and orion are saying is that you will never eradicate conflict, but with a moral society who doesn’t interfere with free will, you will have one on one conflict with a few people who do not get the idea, versus group on group conflict because two groups cannot agree on a values system. Group on group conflicy BTW is called WAR. I would rather have no more war on this planet even if it means a few more person to person conflicts (which I don’t think will be the case, but i’m sure you will argue that it would be).
V
[quote]orion wrote:
Are you that naive?
What do you think will happen if someone will not pay the taxes you need to pursue you “greater good”?
That he will be sent to bed without dinner?
No, men with guns will come and get him and his stuff and if he resists he will be shot dead.
[/quote]
Resisting arrest with deadly force would be the cause of the guy getting shot, not his unwillingness to pay his taxes.
Millions of Americans fail to pay their taxes, but you don’t hear about many of them being shot because of it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually, aggression is the only means by which all just laws in our judicial system are determined.
Murder, rape, theft, coercion, fraud, vandalism, kidnapping, etc…these are all categories of aggressive behavior.[/quote]
Yet the judicial system supports prosecuting people who don’t pay their taxes. How do you explain that?
[quote]But you bring up a point that is very troublesome. You keep talking about values and you have no understanding that values are subjective but actions are not. The law is based on actions not values precisely because there is no way to objectively measure values.
This means that aggression can never be justified. You cannot allow for it in one case and then say it is wrong in an other case because there is no determiner to do so. Utilitarianism has tried repeatedly and failed.[/quote]
Of course values are subjective, but that doesn’t make them irrelevant. Values inform the laws we use to judge the actions of society. Again, if you say that aggression can never be justified, how do you reconcile the aggression committed by law enforcement to support laws which are informed by a large number of values (non-aggression being only one of those values)?
Vegita, I would rather not get into a semantic discussion about values vs. morals but I get your point.
Yes, free will is a value/moral. But it is only one of many such values/morals. People can, and do, have things done to them contrary to their free will all the time. Not everything is a choice, and many times your choices are involuntarily limited or entirely removed due to the actions of others.
Furthermore, limiting or removing the free will of others is frequently viewed as moral by society. For example, what is your take on capital punishment, which is the ultimate removal of free will?
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually, aggression is the only means by which all just laws in our judicial system are determined.
Murder, rape, theft, coercion, fraud, vandalism, kidnapping, etc…these are all categories of aggressive behavior.
Yet the judicial system supports prosecuting people who don’t pay their taxes. How do you explain that?[/quote]
Because the judicial system supports the government over private citizens. Taxation is theft and hence is unjust.
I cannot reconcile aggression in any of its forms. As I said above: The State holds its actions above the actions of private citizens.
The State is a “legalized” monopoly on aggression. This is why I am an anti-statist.
In a free society all forms of aggression must be immoral.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I cannot reconcile aggression in any of its forms. As I said above: The State holds its actions above the actions of private citizens.
The State is a “legalized” monopoly on aggression. This is why I am an anti-statist.
In a free society all forms of aggression must be immoral.[/quote]
So you’re against any kind of law enforcement?
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I cannot reconcile aggression in any of its forms. As I said above: The State holds its actions above the actions of private citizens.
The State is a “legalized” monopoly on aggression. This is why I am an anti-statist.
In a free society all forms of aggression must be immoral.
So you’re against any kind of law enforcement?[/quote]
No, absolutely not! I am against legalized monopolies of aggression. Law enforcement is not aggression, per se. It can only become aggressive when it is given the privilege of a monopoly and thus no one can compete against it. In privately competing law this would never be able to happen.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita, I would rather not get into a semantic discussion about values vs. morals but I get your point.
Yes, free will is a value/moral. But it is only one of many such values/morals. People can, and do, have things done to them contrary to their free will all the time. Not everything is a choice, and many times your choices are involuntarily limited or entirely removed due to the actions of others.
Furthermore, limiting or removing the free will of others is frequently viewed as moral by society. For example, what is your take on capital punishment, which is the ultimate removal of free will?[/quote]
It is not the removal of free will. If a guy tries to rob my house he is making a free will choice. The result of his actions could be several things. He could get a nice haul of cash and valuables and skate away scott free. He could get caught by the police, prosecuted and imprisoned, or he can find someone home with a loaded shotgun and take a slug to the chest and die. Nobody forced him to break into the house, which in and of itself was violating the free will of the person whose house he robbed. Nobody is asking that some people have to not interfere with free will and some people get to interfere with it. Actually, that’s the system we have right now and we are arguing against that. If someone violates the free will of another human, they should be removed from the system, at least IMHO. If you set up a system that flows and is very functional based on that one rule, you keep the integrity of the system, regardless the value judgements inherint in every specific scenario you or I could think of.
If your body becomes infected with cancer, you have two options, Remove the cancer, or get very sick and eventually die. You don’t move the cancer to another area of the body and try to contain it there, as it continues to use bodily resources, you cut it out with a lazer, poison it whith chemicals or radiation, etc…
Now I am not saying I want to start killing shoplifters on the spot. We don’t have a system in place that would give a person the appropriate necessary outlook to comly with such a high moral standard immediately. It would need to be a transition, the value of free will and the consequences of violating it taught in schools etc… And possibly further training and education for minor offenders of violating free will. But severe offenders IMO are useless and a cancer to societies all around the globe and I would be fine with them being recycled back into the environment or some such solution. Shark and fish food would be my choice.
V
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, absolutely not! I am against legalized monopolies of aggression. Law enforcement is not aggression, per se. It can only become aggressive when it is given the privilege of a monopoly and thus no one can compete against it. In privately competing law this would never be able to happen.
[/quote]
Why does it have to be a monopoly in order to take away somebody else’s free will? That makes no sense. Even a single act of incarceration diminishes another person’s free will.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, absolutely not! I am against legalized monopolies of aggression. Law enforcement is not aggression, per se. It can only become aggressive when it is given the privilege of a monopoly and thus no one can compete against it. In privately competing law this would never be able to happen.
Why does it have to be a monopoly in order to take away somebody else’s free will? That makes no sense. Even a single act of incarceration diminishes another person’s free will.[/quote]
The monopoly doesn’t necessarily take away free will but it makes it possible that the protected institutions can use whatever violence they wish without repercussions. In a private law system law enforcement would not be able to get away with any aggression because I can voluntarily decide not to use their services. I would not want to associate with any business that behave in thuggish manner.
I agree about incarceration and free will. I am in favor of throwing criminals into the wilderness where they cannot counter the wishes of civilization. They can have all the free will they want in the wild, living in self sufficient isolation. They will not have time to make trouble when they are trying to survive. That is the proper punishment for anti-social behavior.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It is more moral because you are never interfering with someones freedom and no one is interfering with yours.
Why are you talking about one particular value, as if it is the only value that exists? Sometimes, values come into conflict, and it takes maturity and consideration to determine how to best balance them based on the particular situation.[/quote]
That might be an excellent idea for an individual but not for the assortment of sleazebags we call government.
For them it is just an excuse to do whatever the fuck they want.
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Are you that naive?
What do you think will happen if someone will not pay the taxes you need to pursue you “greater good”?
That he will be sent to bed without dinner?
No, men with guns will come and get him and his stuff and if he resists he will be shot dead.
Resisting arrest with deadly force would be the cause of the guy getting shot, not his unwillingness to pay his taxes.
Millions of Americans fail to pay their taxes, but you don’t hear about many of them being shot because of it.[/quote]
Charming.
What if I come to your house to take your stuff?
I promise only to kill you if you resist me.
Would that be ok for you?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, absolutely not! I am against legalized monopolies of aggression. Law enforcement is not aggression, per se. It can only become aggressive when it is given the privilege of a monopoly and thus no one can compete against it. In privately competing law this would never be able to happen.
Why does it have to be a monopoly in order to take away somebody else’s free will? That makes no sense. Even a single act of incarceration diminishes another person’s free will.
The monopoly doesn’t necessarily take away free will but it makes it possible that the protected institutions can use whatever violence they wish without repercussions. In a private law system law enforcement would not be able to get away with any aggression because I can voluntarily decide not to use their services. I would not want to associate with any business that behave in thuggish manner.
I agree about incarceration and free will. I am in favor of throwing criminals into the wilderness where they cannot counter the wishes of civilization. They can have all the free will they want in the wild, living in self sufficient isolation. They will not have time to make trouble when they are trying to survive. That is the proper punishment for anti-social behavior.[/quote]
By “wilderness” do you mean 5 miles out into the ocean? Because I’m down with that. I mean I’m sure someone could swim/float back to shore, so technically you give them a fighting chance.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, absolutely not! I am against legalized monopolies of aggression. Law enforcement is not aggression, per se. It can only become aggressive when it is given the privilege of a monopoly and thus no one can compete against it. In privately competing law this would never be able to happen.
Why does it have to be a monopoly in order to take away somebody else’s free will? That makes no sense. Even a single act of incarceration diminishes another person’s free will.
The monopoly doesn’t necessarily take away free will but it makes it possible that the protected institutions can use whatever violence they wish without repercussions. In a private law system law enforcement would not be able to get away with any aggression because I can voluntarily decide not to use their services. I would not want to associate with any business that behave in thuggish manner.
I agree about incarceration and free will. I am in favor of throwing criminals into the wilderness where they cannot counter the wishes of civilization. They can have all the free will they want in the wild, living in self sufficient isolation. They will not have time to make trouble when they are trying to survive. That is the proper punishment for anti-social behavior.
By “wilderness” do you mean 5 miles out into the ocean? Because I’m down with that. I mean I’m sure someone could swim/float back to shore, so technically you give them a fighting chance.
V[/quote]
I am thinking Antarctica. No Club Med vacations for them. I heard penguin tastes like chicken.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
In your society, I would become a criminal. Not one that you could put your finger on. But I would befriend all the down trodden, I would arm and train them. I would rule your utopia
No one is claiming it isgoing to be Utopia. But nice of you to keep showing up in these threads and claiming that.
But really, you have access to those kind of arms? Why would you not instead form your own private security/defense company?[/quote]
Hey this is my fantasy, A couple months ago you went out to collect a toll from an unassuming couple and you were assassinated,