Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For someone who has been worn out with this discussion many times before, you sure are persistent to keep at it the way you do, I'll give you that...
I haven't had the chance to view the video yet, but maybe you can help me some by just clearly asking the one first most primary question or point you are making that I have avoided or not addressed. Can you do that, nice and "short and sweet" like?
Otherwise, what I feel I have done is focus on the must fundamental basic truths of these matters that pretty well make all the rest somewhat irrelevant and/or not really worth consideration, "red herring" like. Again, I could be wrong, but how about you provide the fundamental point you feel I am missing here. Again, "short and sweet" if you can...
Alright, sure.
So the main point you've been talking about is that we must obey the law because it's the law, is that correct? That people should NOT do what they think is right in their own eyes, but rather follow what the law says?
You have 2 choices.
A) You DO have an obligation to obey the law, even if you disagree with it.
B) You DON'T have an obligation to obey the law, because your own judgment outranks the law.
Just want to make sure I have your position on this correct.
So the main point you've been talking about is that we must obey the law because it's the law, is that correct? That people should NOT do what they think is right in their own eyes, but rather follow what the law says?
You have 2 choices.
A) You DO have an obligation to obey the law, even if you disagree with it.
B) You DON'T have an obligation to obey the law, because your own judgment outranks the law.
Just want to make sure I have your position on this correct.
I would prefer, if you could, to simply provide what YOU think is the fundamental basic that you think I am missing here. Can you do that?
If it helps any to focus on what I think vs what you think, I would re-write your two choices as follows:
A) As citizens, we all have an obligation to obey the laws, and/or accept the consequences of breaking those laws, and/or act toward changing those laws as perhaps we might otherwise deem appropriate.
B) You have an obligation to obey the law per the basic premise described above, because your own judgment, personal opinion, philosophy or religion does not give anyone the right to be above the law, or to defy the law without expecting the same consequences as everyone else.
Where do we disagree, exactly, short-and-sweet like...
I would prefer, if you could, to simply provide what YOU think is the fundamental basic that you think I am missing here. Can you do that?
If it helps any to focus on what I think vs what you think, I would re-write your two choices as follows:
A) As citizens, we all have an obligation to obey the laws, and/or accept the consequences of breaking those laws, and/or act toward changing those laws as perhaps we might otherwise deem appropriate.
B) You have an obligation to obey the law per the basic premise described above, because your own judgment, personal opinion, philosophy or religion does not give anyone the right to be above the law, or to defy the law without expecting the same consequences as everyone else.
Where do we disagree, exactly, short-and-sweet like...
You think that people have an obligation to obey the law, even if it goes against their own idea of right and wrong. I think everyone should do what is right in their own eyes, regardless of what some authority says they must do.
I would prefer, if you could, to simply provide what YOU think is the fundamental basic that you think I am missing here. Can you do that?
If it helps any to focus on what I think vs what you think, I would re-write your two choices as follows:
A) As citizens, we all have an obligation to obey the laws, and/or accept the consequences of breaking those laws, and/or act toward changing those laws as perhaps we might otherwise deem appropriate.
B) You have an obligation to obey the law per the basic premise described above, because your own judgment, personal opinion, philosophy or religion does not give anyone the right to be above the law, or to defy the law without expecting the same consequences as everyone else.
Where do we disagree, exactly, short-and-sweet like...
Not to offend but are you even vaguely familiar with anarcho-capitalism? There are probably a dozen or so 5 minute videos on Youtube that explain it.
I've only read maybe half of Murray Rothbard's work and understood the concept pretty easily.
Pragmatism is a morally subjective notion that usually precedes copious amounts of force initiation by the pragmatist.
You remarked that T0103E was "persistent". That's the general rub folks get when someone is morally and logically consistent.
Agree pretty much with everything you said but some people have a completely definition of a militia, it appears that any group can be a militia with their broad definition of the 2nd amendment. Many feel that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was for individual citizens to confront government.
Well they are quite simply wrong. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that citizens were equipped and able to serve in the militia if needed, and the primary purpose of the militia was to assist in matters of security when called upon.
The Founders had a deep distrust of standing armies, and maintaining a militia was one way, in their view, to lessen the need for a standing army to be assembled in the first place, and yes, to protect against a standing army turned tyrannical if one should exist. So sure, guarding against tyranny was one aspect of it, but not the primary, and certainly not the only aspect.
Spoiler
( EDITED FOR CONTEXT )
""it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."""
You think that people have an obligation to obey the law, even if it goes against their own idea of right and wrong. I think everyone should do what is right in their own eyes, regardless of what some authority says they must do.
With all due respect, I am not sure that we are in disagreement here or that any reasonable person would disagree. We all obey the law, speed limits, stop signs, pay taxes, etc., while of course we may not abide by a law that we feel is not worthy or just. I would add, however, that we all can and should expect to suffer the consequences when we choose to break the law. Whether we like that or not. Not to repeat myself in this regard, but I find most if not all this "philosophy" rather basic and obvious.
To offer an example that might help exemplify how we agree about this, I abide by the laws as I think we should in general, but I might break a law or protest a law that I think is wrong -- sure! Again, we've both agreed there have been many cases of people doing just this, and also of course, they suffered the consequences as no doubt they expected.
What practical alternative is there to these basic truths or realizations?
Not to offend but are you even vaguely familiar with anarcho-capitalism? There are probably a dozen or so 5 minute videos on Youtube that explain it.
I've only read maybe half of Murray Rothbard's work and understood the concept pretty easily.
Pragmatism is a morally subjective notion that usually precedes copious amounts of force initiation by the pragmatist.
You remarked that T0103E was "persistent". That's the general rub folks get when someone is morally and logically consistent.
I think I am at least "vaguely familiar" with the various forms of anarchy, but I don't see how that has much to do with considering the obvious manner in which we must function under the rule of law, as again simply stated in my last comment.
I too have been fairly "persistent" in my response in these regards. Where does that leave you in terms of how you conclude who is more moral or logical here?
I think I am at least "vaguely familiar" with the various forms of anarchy, but I don't see how that has much to do with considering the obvious manner in which we must function under the rule of law, as again simply stated in my last comment.
I too have been fairly "persistent" in my response in these regards. Where does that leave you in terms of how you conclude who is more moral or logical here?
I'm bias: I'm an anarcho-cap like your opponent.
I have no reason to believe you aren't sincere nor is your logic sound via a statist paradigm. It's just frustrating trying to get people to not worry so much about the ends and focus on the means.
Well, morality is the soul of an individual and not a collective group. There is never a "right" or "wrong"...universally speaking.
Logic is subjective but we have undoubtedly come up with a fantastic way to cooperate: contract law/voluntary associations.
Moral projectionism/protectivism is the hallmark of a megalomaniac. Once you agree and even worse, actively participate, in iniatiating force on another you've broken the NAP which is inexcusable 100% of the time.
Take your red light example. In our current system red means stop (without contract) and failure to do so may find the offender receiving a fine or imprisonment by an involuntary state.
In a stateless society, voluntary associations would most likely make red a universal stop. Of course outliers may not agree and run red lights. However, since they never entered into a contract no other party can punish the red light runner.
Yes, anarchy!
This is where most folks start to feel the pull back to statism. They miss the security blanket of an involuntary state to punish.
But realistically, how many people are going to run red for s%#^# and giggles? How many people aren't going to be involved in contracts/associations that say stop on red (plus don't murder, rape, all that good stuff)?
Spontaneous formations of associations would render the state useless. The percentage of sociopaths, terrorists, and psychotics is not around 85% as the media/state would have you believe.
Ah the statist paradigm, but realistically speaking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I'm bias: I'm an anarcho-cap like your opponent.
I have no reason to believe you aren't sincere nor is your logic sound via a statist paradigm. It's just frustrating trying to get people to not worry so much about the ends and focus on the means.
Well, morality is the soul of an individual and not a collective group. There is never a "right" or "wrong"...universally speaking.
Logic is subjective but we have undoubtedly come up with a fantastic way to cooperate: contract law/voluntary associations.
Moral projectionism/protectivism is the hallmark of a megalomaniac. Once you agree and even worse, actively participate, in iniatiating force on another you've broken the NAP which is inexcusable 100% of the time.
Take your red light example. In our current system red means stop (without contract) and failure to do so may find the offender receiving a fine or imprisonment by an involuntary state.
In a stateless society, voluntary associations would most likely make red a universal stop. Of course outliers may not agree and run red lights. However, since they never entered into a contract no other party can punish the red light runner.
Yes, anarchy!
This is where most folks start to feel the pull back to statism. They miss the security blanket of an involuntary state to punish.
But realistically, how many people are going to run red for s%#^# and giggles? How many people aren't going to be involved in contracts/associations that say stop on red (plus don't murder, rape, all that good stuff)?
Spontaneous formations of associations would render the state useless. The percentage of sociopaths, terrorists, and psychotics is not around 85% as the media/state would have you believe.
Uh..., well..., okay..., I'm not sure where all that "anarcho-cap" philosophy leaves you in terms of how you live your life differently than anyone else, but just a note or two of observation if I may...
Agreed that pretty much everything is subjective. This is no intellectual breakthrough or big news for most adults. I'm also not sure about what you call the "security blanket" as opposed to what I view as common sense social order. The red light case in point. It DOES NOT MATTER what anyone necessarily believes is right or wrong when it comes to stopping at a light, or paying taxes. Yes again, sure, we can all do as we wish in anarchy fashion, but if that is the way anyone chooses to live -- regardless the philosophy that guides them so -- you are subject to the laws of the land regardless.
And/or you suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.
Two buddies driving along when the driver runs a red light.
The passenger says, "Wow! What the heck are you doing running that red light?"
Driver says, "my brother taught me to drive..."
Driver no sooner says this, he runs another red light.
Passenger cries out, "Hey! What's up with running the red lights???"
Driver says again, "my brother taught me to drive this way..."
Next thing the driver SLAMS on the breaks at the next intersection, but the light is green at the intersection.
Passenger can't take it anymore and yells out, "what in the frick are you doing? That light is green!"
Driver says, "you never know when my brother might be coming through."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who's point do you want to make?
