The Wisdom of Ayn Rand

[Sloth]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-aggression= refusing to feed and clothe an infant.

Aggression= entering the property to remove the child, against the wishes of the negligent mother.

Does the aggression principle trump the non-aggression principle here?[/quote]

What moral right do you have to feed someone else’s child?[/quote]

It would be my Christian moral duty. But, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. Libertarianism, that actually believes in itself, sees no such thing. The negligent mother is not aggressive, the would be rescuers of the child would be immoral aggressors, breaking the absolute “non-aggression principle.” Thanks.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

No. If I pay a contractor XXX amount of money after a verbal or written contract, and he leaves without doing the job, this is “theft” (and probably “fraud” too) and is absolutely enforceable. I don’t think you disagree here. [/quote]

Well, not exactly, because “theft” and “fraud” are not actions in contract, they are torts independent of contracts. If someone leaves without doing his job, it’s a breach of contract (non-performance), not theft. And, no, it’s not fraud, because you aren’t the victim of deceit, merely non-performance of a contract.

That is only untrue if you are either 1) being extremely uncharitable in reading my above example or 2) you are purposely ignoring the implications of it. From my example quoted above, it is clearly stated you can enforce other parts of a contract even if there is an unconscionable clause in it, but not the unconscionable clause itself. It is a very simple logical jump to reason that if there is only the unconscionable clause there is nothing to enforce.

No, I get it, which is why I wanted clarification.

Honestly it doesn’t sound like we are far apart on this at all. You can’t sign yourself into slavery, because your right to non-aggression is immutable. If there was no other clause but the slavery or death clause it would be null from the start because it is ‘unconscionable’. Assuming no other aspects of the contract, THAT is why you can’t sell yourself under a principle of non-aggression.

We aren’t far apart on the issue, because I don’t contend anyone can contract these in a bargain for moral reasons. The problem was your inconsistent explanations. And it’s not that I disagree with the concept of the non-aggression principle (properly stated), I simply think that (1) there’s no secular authority for it as a universal moral and secular libertarians have no good arguments in support of it, and (2) and there exists a moral architecture that includes far more than a basic non-aggression principle.

But I have no interest in pursiung those further in this thread.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It would be my Christian moral duty. But, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. Libertarianism, that actually believes in itself, sees no such thing. The negligent mother is not aggressive, the would be rescuers of the child would be immoral aggressors, breaking the absolute “non-aggression principle.” Thanks.[/quote]

I’m usually pretty hard on ole Lifty, but at least he provided an answer to this question.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-aggression= refusing to feed and clothe an infant.

Aggression= entering the property to remove the child, against the wishes of the negligent mother.

Does the aggression principle trump the non-aggression principle here?[/quote]

What moral right do you have to feed someone else’s child?[/quote]

It would be my Christian moral duty. But, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. Libertarianism, that actually believes in itself, sees no such thing. The negligent mother is not aggressive, the would be rescuers of the child would be immoral aggressors, breaking the absolute “non-aggression principle.” Thanks.[/quote]

Yes, and libertarian would see it has his moral duty to set the moral example without use of a gun. Like Jesus, perhaps, would do…?

[Sloth]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-aggression= refusing to feed and clothe an infant.

Aggression= entering the property to remove the child, against the wishes of the negligent mother.

Does the aggression principle trump the non-aggression principle here?[/quote]

What moral right do you have to feed someone else’s child?[/quote]

It would be my Christian moral duty. But, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. Libertarianism, that actually believes in itself, sees no such thing. The negligent mother is not aggressive, the would be rescuers of the child would be immoral aggressors, breaking the absolute “non-aggression principle.” Thanks.[/quote]

Yes, and libertarian would see it has his moral duty to set the moral example without use of a gun. Like Jesus, perhaps, would do…?[/quote]

She doesn’t want you on the property, period. And, will not surrender the child. And no, actually, Jesus spoke of the state’s legitimate use of the sword.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-aggression= refusing to feed and clothe an infant.

Aggression= entering the property to remove the child, against the wishes of the negligent mother.

Does the aggression principle trump the non-aggression principle here?[/quote]

What moral right do you have to feed someone else’s child?[/quote]

It would be my Christian moral duty. But, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. Libertarianism, that actually believes in itself, sees no such thing. The negligent mother is not aggressive, the would be rescuers of the child would be immoral aggressors, breaking the absolute “non-aggression principle.” Thanks.[/quote]

Yes, and libertarian would see it has his moral duty to set the moral example without use of a gun. Like Jesus, perhaps, would do…?[/quote]

She doesn’t want you on the property, period. And, will not surrender the child. And no, actually, Jesus spoke of the state’s legitimate use of the sword. [/quote]

What does Jesus specify as “the state’s legitimate use of the sword”?

And does he not also contradict that same statement in an other book?

[Sloth]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What does Jesus specify as “the state’s legitimate use of the sword”?

And does he not also contradict that same statement in an other book?[/quote]

Romans 13

1
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

But, I’m not looking to turn this into a Christian thread. Let’s just this at that. You’ve already answered, thanks.

[kilpaba]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What does Jesus specify as “the state’s legitimate use of the sword”?

And does he not also contradict that same statement in an other book?[/quote]

Romans 13

1
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

But, I’m not looking to turn this into a Christian thread. Let’s just this at that. You’ve already answered, thanks.[/quote]

Thankfully most folks don’t interpret this literally anymore or at least ignore it. You could never oppose the government on anything at that point. Maybe it is just taken out of context.

[Sloth]

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What does Jesus specify as “the state’s legitimate use of the sword”?

And does he not also contradict that same statement in an other book?[/quote]

Romans 13

1
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

But, I’m not looking to turn this into a Christian thread. Let’s just this at that. You’ve already answered, thanks.[/quote]

Thankfully most folks don’t interpret this literally anymore or at least ignore it. You could never oppose the government on anything at that point. Maybe it is just taken out of context.[/quote]

No, it’s out of context. There are obviously moral laws that Christian can’t cross, despite what an authority might demand. It’s more of “in principle” statement. Not that any one specific authority will protect the good and only punish the innocent, thus have legitimacy. It’s a general principle. I only share it to cut off any anarcho-Christ ideas, which is how I read Lift’s statement (or question). In short, no, there’s nothing to say that Jesus would object to the state wielding the sword (gun) in trespassing upon a grossly negligent mother’s property to remove an emaciated child. Punishing the evil, it very much has the authority to do so, in Christianity.

[Big_Banana]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-aggression= refusing to feed and clothe an infant.

Aggression= entering the property to remove the child, against the wishes of the negligent mother.

Does the aggression principle trump the non-aggression principle here?[/quote]

What moral right do you have to feed someone else’s child?[/quote]

More of a moral right than they have to starve it.