Libs- Why are you a Lib? (unemployed, election, state, federal)

[irspow]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

We shall see.
Is democracy tyranny or is tyranny is the absence of democracy?
"Initiation of force is unjust.
Retaliatory force is just."

Democracy is as evil and unjust as any totalitarian system if there are not a maximum number of protections of individual freedom against the "will of the people". The victims of the majority's unjust aggression are no better off than if they had been abused by a single tyrant. The majority has no more right to initiate force against an individual than an individual has a right to initiate force upon the majority. (Hence, the "individual, group, or government" part of the principle that you seem to dispise.)

Originally Posted by ovcatto

By your reasoning there is no justification for one nation going to aid of another nation who has been unjustly attacked? Yes or No.

We are talking about international affairs here. No. While we may agree that it would seem a good thing, and quite rationally just, to use retaliatory force to repel a foreign initiation of force upon a "friendly" nation, that is not why a nation has a military. A military of a nation is meant to retaliate against an attack upon itself. Foreign military action should be left to foreign nations. It is not our, Americans, responsibility to produce justice for the rest of the world. We should simply practice justice in our own nation as an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

By your reasoning, as an extreme but appropriate example, murder should not be against the law because it punishes a hypothetical future murder? How absurd! And the absurdity isn't diminished even when we look for more benign examples, case in point, all restaurant employees must wash their hands after using the bathroom hands. This punishes who, hypothetically speaking?

I said no such thing, asserting so actually is absurd. "Murder" is and should be illegal. No presumption of future guilt is applied. If you have killed someone, other than in a retaliatory sense, self-defense, you should be dealt with in the same manner as the victim. However, this does lead into unjust "presumption of guilt" or preventative law that should be abolished.

When we initiate force upon the innocent to "prevent" murder, we have entered into the unjust world of preventative law. For example, we can look at all "illegal" guns or restrictions on gun ownership in this nation. The "logic" of such elimination of freedom by unjust laws is to "prevent" murder. However, enforcement of such laws punishes those who have committed no crime by the presumption of future guilt of "murderers" that do not yet exist.

Yes, some people will initiate force with firearms and kill others, and those people should be punished under laws against murder. But, the vast majority of people who own firearms never indulge in unjust activities such as murder. Why should these people be punished for crimes that they have not, and most likely never will, commit? Again, "presumption of guilt" laws are unjust and immoral. They are simply the tools of the tyrants among us.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your argument? Granted a law in and of itself will not prevent all crime but without the same laws that you deride, what law would it be that could be utilized to punish said offences after the fact??

I am not against any law which uses force to retaliate against those who initiate force. I still state that no law prevents any crime. This is a silly fable, preventative law, that the tyrants have weaved upon our consciousness. Individuals prevent crime by choosing not to initiate force upon others. Laws, at best, serve to provide an added risk to a behavior when contemplated by an individual.

Any law which is retaliatory is just. We can say that initiating force to cause the death of another is murder and retaliate with law. We should not say that simply being capable of murder is equal to committing the crime. It is not. You seriously cannot see the difference?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Which is why I have been dying for real actual circumstances, even one circumstance!

You have been "dying" for real actual circumstances? I have tried to answer all of your questions sincerely. Hopefully, you will pose specific questions, if you need such examples. Maybe the above contrast between just law, like the punishment for murders, and unjust law, like regulation of firearms, can serve as one of these actual circumstances.

Let's see...what other mundane " actual circumstance" or law does our unjust society constantly and consistently produce because most of us are delusional tyrants. We need to provide examples because some can not expand upon or see the obvious ramifications of a simple idea by themselves.

How about the "illegality" of marijuana? Yes, this is a great example of the vast majority of our unjust laws. It has the arrogance. It has the foolish assumptions. It has the punishment of the innocent. It serves only the interests of megalomaniacs. It eliminates freedom not for justice, but for the wishes of the unjust. It creates a nearly infinite amount of further and more severe problems than the divine tyrants told us it would solve. It gives more power to the tyrants and less to the people. Finally, it serves to impose a "vision" of what society should be, and forces others to comply who have done no wrong.

When someone uses marijuana who is being forcibly harmed? No one. You might argue that they are harming themselves. Fine, that may be true. Does he not "own" his own body? Or are we to believe that the State "owns" his body? I would say that his body is his, and his alone. If he chooses to poison himself for amusement, that is his natural right. To justify taking away that right, one must make the argument that the State has more right to his being than the being himself. Only the most arrogant, self righteous, and delusional among us can defend such a position.

Again, who is being harmed? If this person is not forcibly harming another where is the justification for initiating force against them? There is no justification. In comes the "presumption of guilt" crowd to save the day! "He will become sick and do dangerous things." Really? And just how do these clairvoyants prove these future crimes? They don't and cannot. They simply initiate force to impose their will. These are the real criminals who have initiated force and not the innocent who merely use marijuana.

What are the results of this unjust initiation of force, the punishment of this non-crime? Well we simply have turned a natural freedom into a crime. We see many people placed in prisons for doing no harm whatsoever. We see a rise in "crime", because we have taken a normal peaceful activity, and called it a "crime".

What else? We see a rather cheap product to produce turned into a commodity of such high value that it encourages "crime". We force this product to become the trade of those who would be criminals anyway. We see thousands, if not millions, of legislated Al Capone's running amok within our society. We see everything that similar stupid laws have produced in the past. We see the new "Prohibition Era" in America. But now with a populace having even less morality.

However, we are told to believe that our current situation is better than if the "pot heads" were allowed to be free. Really? And this is based on what? Certainly not on times when marijuana was not illegal. We have seen what prohibiting that which people want to do peacefully is foolish and destructive. People will do what they want to do regardless of any delusional tyrant's law. The activities of people are the result of what they choose to do and not on what laws say they should do. Sadly, we are far more irrational today regarding marijuana than we were in 1933 regarding alcohol. We like throwing our fellow man in prisons for behavior that does no harm to us other than to offend our personal beliefs and interests. It is nice to see that we prefer real crimes to imagined ones by enacting laws that initiate force.

Sorry for anyone not interested in this other than ovcatto who wants examples of how to expand upon a basic thought.

Live and let live.

[ovcatto]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
We shall see.
Is democracy tyranny or is tyranny is the absence of democracy?
"Initiation of force is unjust.
Retaliatory force is just."

Democracy is as evil and unjust as any totalitarian system if there are not a maximum number of protections of individual freedom against the "will of the people".

That’s is all fine and good and is precisely how the American system is set-up. So, we are on the same page so far. But then we get to:

The majority has no more right to initiate force against an individual than an individual has a right to initiate force upon the majority.

If those “maximum” (how one ascertains what the maximum should be has yet to be answered) number of protections are in place (See Bill of Rights) then the majority, as you point out, has every right to “initiate force” against the individual in all matters not pertaining to those enumerated individual rights, does it not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
By your reasoning there is no justification for one nation going to aid of another nation who has been unjustly attacked? Yes or No.

A military of a nation is meant to retaliate against an attack upon itself.

Perhaps you should have written, a nation’s military should exist only to defend that nation from an attack. A nice sentiment, but rather naïve.

Foreign military action should be left to foreign nations. It is not our, Americans, responsibility to produce justice for the rest of the world. We should simply practice justice in our own nation as an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Again, a nice sentiment but at the risk of overusing the example, the fight against Nazi aggression was more than justified on so many levels that it needs no further explanation. And while WWII many have been one of the few examples of what Thomas Aquinas or even libertarian Murray Rothbard would have called a just war, it is illustrative that your statement lacks moral certitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
By your reasoning, as an extreme but appropriate example, murder should not be against the law because it punishes a hypothetical future murder? How absurd! And the absurdity isn't diminished even when we look for more benign examples, case in point, all restaurant employees must wash their hands after using the bathroom hands. This punishes who, hypothetically speaking?

I said no such thing, asserting so actually is absurd.

Not in the least bit since your initial statement is so broad as a statement or principles that it allows all sorts of absurdities to fall through the cracks of your stated reasoning (which is one the bases of our disagreement).

“Whenever we create "preventative" laws, often called "regulation", we are punishing hypothetical future criminals who are in fact innocent. That is an unjust initiation of force.”

So, within context of your earlier statement that no government/society should have more power than the individual, who determines, what, constitutes murder, as opposed to justifiable homicide? And if such laws are not preventative then what are they?

However, this does lead into unjust "presumption of guilt" or preventative law that should be abolished.

When we initiate force upon the innocent to "prevent" murder, we have entered into the unjust world of preventative law. For example, we can look at all "illegal" guns or restrictions on gun ownership in this nation. The "logic" of such elimination of freedom by unjust laws is to "prevent" murder…

Now we are entering into the world of expository discussion, at long last.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your argument? Granted a law in and of itself will not prevent all crime but without the same laws that you deride, what law would it be that could be utilized to punish said offences after the fact??

I still state that no law prevents any crime.

And I would say that your statement is totally untrue. Many people, myself included won’t commit certain acts for no other reasons than because doing so would be a violation of the law. Most of us who live in a cooperative society are more than willing to compromise our actions in order to benefit from others.

This is a silly fable, preventative law, that the tyrants have weaved upon our consciousness. Individuals prevent crime by choosing not to initiate force upon others. Laws, at best, serve to provide an added risk to a behavior when contemplated by an individual.

I’m sorry but this conversation reminds me of an argument that I had with my 15 year old regarding the tyranny of parents and teachers… but I digress.

We should not say that simply being capable of murder is equal to committing the crime. It is not. You seriously cannot see the difference?

I do understand your argument, finally, but I would also offer another point that you need to consider. The punishment for owning a illegal firearm is no commensurate with the punishment for committing murder, to so argue that fire arm restrictions are tantamount to a presumption of murder is a bit of a legal stretch (by the way you would be a rare breed if you are opposed to the illegality of convicted felons from owning a firearm).

[djacques]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Another try at undefined wordsmithing. What the hell is unlimited majority rule? The U.S. has unlimited majority rule which also enacted a bill of rights, so I'm a bit confused.

Indeed you are. The U.S. does not have unlimited majority rule, but a modified democratic republic--and was considerably less democratic when it enacted the Bill of Rights than it is today. The Framers had barely disguised contempt for the 'swinish masses'. Most of the Bill of Rights probably would be voted down today if we held a plebescite on each of them separately.

The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic. That's precisely why its good. The protection of individual rights is inherently anti-democratic. The worthless imbecile public will nearly always give up its own freedoms in order to afflict their neighbors.

So, if it has a formal, written mutual defense pact, enacted by a the "tyrannical" representatives of the people it's ok, but without one, the same "tyrannical" representatives have no right to approval a declaration of war to defend another country? Am I missing something?

Yes, people have the right to know IN ADVANCE what they may be expected to sacrifice their money or lives for.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Again, a nice sentiment but at the risk of overusing the example, the fight against Nazi aggression was more than justified on so many levels that it needs no further explanation. And while WWII many have been one of the few examples of what Thomas Aquinas or even libertarian Murray Rothbard would have called a just war, it is illustrative that your statement lacks moral certitude.

Rothbard absolutely did not agree that WWII was justified, and neither do I. It's far from a universally accepted point.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by djacques

Indeed you are.

Actually, I seriously doubt it.

The U.S. does not have unlimited majority rule

But it does, since the people, if they so desired, could un-modify it, could they not?

The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic.

Hardly. As I pointed out above, there is nothing which prevents the American people from amending or abolishing the Bill of Rights. But that is neither here nor there since every definition of the world democracy simply states that democracy is

"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

As for you last point.

Yes, people have the right to know IN ADVANCE what they may be expected to sacrifice their money or lives for.

I can think of few wars in my life time in which the vast majority of people were not informed in advance, the governments reasons for engaging in any of its wars. And I can recall only one or two occasions in which opposing information, for those who chose to seek it, was not available from which to form an opinion pro or con. As for being informed in advance about the specific cost in either blood or treasure... I don't know what sort of tea leaves would provide an accurate pre-accounting of any war regardless of its reasons, good or ill.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by djacques

Rothbard absolutely did not agree that WWII was justified, and neither do I. It's far from a universally accepted point.

I sit corrected.

As for your personal view that WWII was not justified... that is indeed a sad state of personal affairs.

[irspow]

BTW, thanks for being a little less hostile this time. I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

If those “maximum” (how one ascertains what the maximum should be has yet to be answered) number of protections are in place (See Bill of Rights) then the majority, as you point out, has every right to “initiate force” against the individual in all matters not pertaining to those enumerated individual rights, does it not?

Just to be clear. The maximum number of protections, or the maximum freedom I speak of, is all action that is not an initiation of force upon another. That is how one "ascertains" what freedoms just people should have. Actually, this is also the way that we should determine what a crime is too. If someone initiates force against another, that is a crime. Is that the "yet to be answered" question?

I would not agree to the notion that the Bill of Rights is an exhaustive enumeration of rights. I would also argue that the "majority" has no right to abridge freedom of individuals who have not initiated force. You may believe that mob rule is a good thing. I do not. We can peacefully disagree.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Perhaps you should have written, a nation’s military should exist only to defend that nation from an attack. A nice sentiment, but rather naïve.

"Should" may have been more appropriate. You may believe that others are naive to promote peace and consistently stand by their principles. If that is your definition of naive then so be it. That is your opinion and you are entitled to hold it.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Again, a nice sentiment but at the risk of overusing the example, the fight against Nazi aggression was more than justified on so many levels that it needs no further explanation. And while WWII many have been one of the few examples of what Thomas Aquinas or even libertarian Murray Rothbard would have called a just war, it is illustrative that your statement lacks moral certitude.

Excuse me? We were directly attacked by the Japanese before entering the war. I do not believe that retaliating against the Axis was unjustified. Never said it either. Please do not confuse me with the selective morality of the "left" and the "right". You know my defining principle and you have not found any inconsistency. Hinting that I have been lacking "moral certitude" does not make it so.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

So, within context of your earlier statement that no government/society should have more power than the individual, who determines, what, constitutes murder, as opposed to justifiable homicide? And if such laws are not preventative then what are they?

Ideally, such issues of morality would be defined unanimously. However, that is rarely, if ever, the case. So the best that any society can hope to accomplish is to apply only those standards which is as universally accepted as possible. The farther you stray from applying only universal morality upon the group the further you stray from freedom. So what is the rational solution to this problem of oppression? I will admit that there is no absolute solution that is practical.

I am simply arguing that the best that we can possibly ever hope to aspire to is to create a society that is just. Now your definition of just can be very different than mine. I look at justice as simply fairness, equality, and peace. We could further argue what those terms mean too. It is pointless as everyone's viewpoint is as unique as are individual human beings.

If we are all individual human beings with different internal interpretations of morality, justice, fairness, and equality, what is the best way to order society so that all people are free to live in accordance with these beliefs? To design society so that each individual is free to act on these beliefs without restriction except the punishment of those who initiate force upon others. That is my opinion, you may disagree, and have repeatedly done so. It does not make me evil or wrong. It just means that we have a difference of opinion. Notice however, that my beliefs do not have a need to force you to do anything.
However, this does lead into unjust "presumption of guilt" or preventative law that should be abolished.

I am advocating a society that has no laws which do anything but retaliate against those who initiate force. Murder and most other things that mankind has seemingly always regarded as evil or wrong emerged first in religion and then in government. Actually, I think that all of our unjust laws are the result of straying from the principle of the first sentence above.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your argument? Granted a law in and of itself will not prevent all crime but without the same laws that you deride, what law would it be that could be utilized to punish said offences after the fact??

No person, group, or government shall initiate force upon another person, group, or government. (LOL...sorry, it is a fundamental principle necessary for maximum human freedom to exist.)

For any particular law to be just it has to first obey this principle. Setting punishments, or rather defining proper retaliation to be used against those who initiate force, should be determined by justice as well. What harm has been caused? What has the victim lost? The offender should be treated the same way that the victim was.

Where we differ, if I am reading you correctly, is that you agree with punishing people who have committed no crime or initiated no force upon another. You may like giving away freedom for a false sense of security in nearly every aspect of human existence, that is your choice. However, such a choice by you does not justify you taking away the freedoms of others.

Any law that is just only punishes actual crimes that have been committed. "Preventative" law punishes future crimes. I will stand by this statement. Anyone who believes consistently that people should be "innocent until proven guilty" do not support such "regulation". Preventative law is diametrically opposed to the idea. We are not only presumed guilty of future crime, but punished for this idiotic assumption as if it were fact.

I am not against punishing those who initiate force upon others! That is the only just reason that I believe government exists.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

And I would say that your statement is totally untrue. Many people, myself included won’t commit certain acts for no other reasons than because doing so would be a violation of the law. Most of us who live in a cooperative society are more than willing to compromise our actions in order to benefit from others.

I am fully willing to compromise every freedom that would allow me to initiate force upon another. That willingness is what allows us to cooperate as a civil society not the creation of an endless stream of laws. The laws are only needed to punish those who will not make the same compromise that I am willing to.

I feel sad for those who believe that government defines morality. How lost and confused they must be. All that is right and wrong is to be determined by others for them. Beliefs blowing in the wind of governmental whim. How naive indeed.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I’m sorry but this conversation reminds me of an argument that I had with my 15 year old regarding the tyranny of parents and teachers… but I digress.

I am sorry that you feel like you are in the same relationship as a parent to a child when you talk to other adults.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I do understand your argument, finally, but I would also offer another point that you need to consider. The punishment for owning a illegal firearm is no commensurate with the punishment for committing murder, to so argue that fire arm restrictions are tantamount to a presumption of murder is a bit of a legal stretch (by the way you would be a rare breed if you are opposed to the illegality of convicted felons from owning a firearm).

If these owners of "illegal" firearms have as yet harmed no one, why are they to be punished in any manner whatsoever? This is the realm of imaginary future crime. The punishment should be commensurate with the crime committed. In the case of simply owning any firearm, that would be exactly zero punishment. It is an infinite stretch to say that owning a weapon is any type of crime in any way.

Someone MAY use a weapon to commit a crime and that is when they should be punished. Not before. You can beat a person to death with your bare hands, but we do not regulate the "ownership" of hands. Perhaps we should ban knives because they COULD be used to kill someone.

Live and let live.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

But it does, since the people, if they so desired, could un-modify it, could they not?

Possibly, but until they do, the point stands. The U.S. is currently far too democratic, but it is not a purely democratic society. A move toward abolishing the "modifications" would have to get through the Supreme Court and other unelected figures.

Hardly. As I pointed out above, there is nothing which prevents the American people from amending or abolishing the Bill of Rights.

There is. Whether the undemocratic forces would succeed is debatable, but there certainly are things that would push back against the abolition of the Bill of Rights.

But that is neither here nor there since every definition of the world democracy simply states that democracy is

"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

None of that includes protection of individual rights as a distinguishing characteristic of democracy. The definition is correct: it is not a distinguishing characteristic of democracy. It is a distinguishing characteristic of a free society.

I can think of few wars in my life time in which the vast majority of people were not informed in advance, the governments reasons for engaging in any of its wars. And I can recall only one or two occasions in which opposing information, for those who chose to seek it, was not available from which to form an opinion pro or con.

Being "informed" why you are being robbed and your kids possibly abducted for service in the interests of other countries hardly qualifies as consent. Not to mention that politicians lie constantly, as a way of life. Every war is based on lies, but in some cases they are more contemptible than others. Wilson ran on peace, declared war and locked up people who complained. Roosevelt promised peace, maneuvered the country into war and blacklisted people who complained. Lyndon Johnson...too obvious to need recapitulation. All Democrats, by the way...and all utterly evil men who would deserve to burn in hell if there were such a place.

As for being informed in advance about the specific cost in either blood or treasure... I don't know what sort of tea leaves would provide an accurate pre-accounting of any war regardless of its reasons, good or ill.

I made no mention as to a precise accounting of costs, merely the right of people to assessment of the possible risks and benefits of certain foreign policy commitments and alliances before the war starts, not after.

[Atilla]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I think you need to read Marx. You may have missed the whole point. What do you guys read? First one thinks that Marx was not anti-semitic, then another thinks that being a marxist and Christian is perfectly compatible!

Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science

Antireligion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Did you guys also need a link showing that the sky is blue and that grass is green?

Hawkeye2009 is one of the few on these boards, all conservatives, that seem to get it done better than myself and I consider that a compliment.
There is little I could add to improve upon his comments in this very good thread in whcih liberals are demonstrated to be eletists, resorting to the tactics of correcting spelling, providing links ad nauseum (plagiarising in the absense of thinking for themselves)and calling for proof "that indeed" the sky is blue and the grass is green.
All the while quoting Philosophy 101 or some other artsy fartsy curriculum model that after making a c+ became latent experts and strive constantly to synthesize it with Newsweek or some MSNBC news report. It gets so boring.
Hawkeye on the other hand is inspiring, mostly because, he and Gringo, Sanrene, Silas777, and several others, reassure me that I am not living in an intellectual desert and there may be some hope for humanity.
In the midst of the greatest challenge and assault to our sovereignty, intellectual freedom, social freedom, economic freedom, and most importantly, entitlement to the pursuit of happiness, -in the history of the nation, I find these voices reassuring.
I have been a registered independent since I registered at the age of 18 after having been in the U.S. Navy for half a year. It has been a long journey to right thinking. Under no circumstances would I ever vote for a democrat today because of the devolution that has infested the left as taught in the public school system and perpetrated by the political left.

The idealogues among us woke up after Carter and I wil maintain faith that they will wake up after a year or two of his political kindred Obama.

People generally are not as stupid as they are easily beguiled by the ideological toothe fairies. When they check under their pillow often enough they will start to believe again that the answer is within themselves.

On the other hand the only way out of the bottomless pit of collectivism is experience and maturity. Some never make it and that becomes their personal hell.

I am accused of not being a very nice person. Actually, I am thoughtful, kind, considerate, generous,polite, lots of good stuff. I simply have no tolerance for ideologues, hell bent on our destruction, cumbayah junkies wanting some sort of vaporous feel good fix to salve their personal unhappiness.

Get a job, work hard every day and start making some money, that will make you feel good about yourself.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by irspow

Excuse me? We were directly attacked by the Japanese before entering the war. I do not believe that retaliating against the Axis was unjustified. Never said it either. Please do not confuse me with the selective morality of the "left" and the "right". You know my defining principle and you have not found any inconsistency. Hinting that I have been lacking "moral certitude" does not make it so.

Ovcatto is more consistent than you are on this point--not more correct, but more consistent. In order to make a case from self-defense you have to have clean hands. A politician can't paint himself and his country into a corner with bellicose rhetoric, and when he ends up getting us hit as he expected, shriek with self-righteous horror about how we are only defending ourselves. That's the story of Mexico, Spain, Cuba, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.