|
Soviet Commubot posted:That doesn't really explain it It has to do with The absoluteness attributed to the concept. Look we got him asserting there in an absolute moral law, that is expressed in the thinking consciousnesses of people. When he capitalizes Ethics, Virtue, Trust, that's all consistent with that. He's attributed absoluteness and universal-ness to moral law. So I'd expect anything along those lines (Ethic, Good, Moral Law, Reason, etc) capitalized. My hunch on "Position" is that there is a hierarchy of ideas or things (discussed somewhere in something he reads) that is being related to the "Moral Law". Like I said "Position" is a stretch, but I would think that it would imply a relationship relative to what Plastics considers absolute when he capitalizes it. Maybe I can say it another way. Often that which is highest is capitalized. Position having a capitalization might be something indicative of that ranking. No idea where capitalization of "Damages" might come from. Another way to look at it is things treated as "God" or as divine get capitalized. "they can get Justice": Justice there implied to be holy or divine. "thing the Government today does": Implied you dirty statists with government as God. Capitalization implies the elevation of an idea, it might be that he thinks an idea is holy. Or like the government thing he might be implying that someone else treats an idea as holy. Hmm that might explain why "Damages" and "Revenge" are capitalized actually. He's implying that we would think those things are high, that we let those concepts dictate our actions because we treat them as God. Captain_Maclaine posted:You fool! You're asking BrandorKP to explain shifting definitions of commonly-understood words, you'll kill us all! Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Aug 10, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It has to do with The absoluteness attributed to the concept. Look we got him asserting there in an absolute moral law, that is expressed in the thinking consciousnesses of people. When he capitalizes Ethics, Virtue, Trust, that's all consistent with that. He's attributed absoluteness and universal-ness to moral law. So I'd expect anything along those lines (Ethic, Good, Moral Law, Reason, etc) capitalized. My hunch on "Position" is that there is a hierarchy of ideas or things (discussed somewhere in something he reads) that is being related to the "Moral Law". Like I said "Position" is a stretch, but I would think that it would imply a relationship relative to what Plastics considers absolute when he capitalizes it. Maybe I can say it another way. Often that which is highest is capitalized. Position having a capitalization might be something indicative of that ranking. This all still makes zero sense, sorry 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Plastics posted:I do try to research places and foods before I go there yes (and I am not perfect but the difference is I would admit it was my own fault if I got sick because I did not research my food) BUT! There is something you have overlooked here. ALthough the Government does exist and exert its power that does not mean that NO other factors can be in play. If I go to a diner I can know that it is probably safe because a lot of other people have gone there and enjoyed their food and not been sick or dead from it. And I only need to go the first time to do research or when they change policies. In an anarchist system that would be exactly the same by the way.. Why is it your fault for going to a restaurant that serves unsafe food instead of the restaurant's fault for serving unsafe food? Why should restaurants be permitted to serve unsafe food? (Also quit calling yourself an anarchist, you proprietarian gently caress, you are nothing of the sort.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Can't we all just agree that children dying of cancer because their parents picked the wrong asthma medicine is a far smaller Injustice than the Government using Coercion to take a small amount of my Money? That "child" is a Slave by the governMent, who Cruelly prevented Him from exploring ALTernative means to paY for his CANCER treaTMEnt. sHOW some entrepreneurial spirit; He could have SolD Himself into slaverY! IT'S A FREE choice between slavery and Death, but He was robbed of THAT choICE because the GoVeRnMeNt paid for his Treatment/organizeD SUBSIDIES to HELP buy INSURANCE dependING on if He lives in CivilIzation or not. Plastics, have you ever been down on your luck in life and really wanted to sell yourself into slavery but found the government cruelly stopped you? Do you have a daughter who just isn't doing that well in High School and so you want to take her aside and explain that she should just give up on High School, and work at McDonalds? Are you planning on picking up one of the new $1/hr jobs that will pop up once the minimum wage is abolished?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:That "child" is a Slave by the governMent, who Cruelly prevented Him from exploring ALTernative means to paY for his CANCER treaTMEnt. sHOW some entrepreneurial spirit; He could have SolD Himself into slaverY! IT'S A FREE choice between slavery and Death, but He was robbed of THAT choICE because the GoVeRnMeNt paid for his Treatment/organizeD SUBSIDIES to HELP buy INSURANCE dependING on if He lives in CivilIzation or not. Hey now, abolishing the minimum wage is an excellent idea when coupled with a universal guaranteed minimum income that, one way or another, covers food, housing, medical care, and a splash of discretionary funds..
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Plastics, have you ever been down on your luck in life and really wanted to sell yourself into slavery but found the government cruelly stopped you? Yeah, if your property is equivalent to yourself, and you can sell anything that belongs to you, why shouldn't you be able to sell yourself? The government is depriving us of our Reason-given right to give up all our rights!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Someone selling unsafe and downright dangerous products free from oversight is not enhancing someon's ability to think for themselves. Its hard to 'think for yourself' if its impossible to verify any of the conditions that may be life threatening without a full lab setup. What kind of false dichotomy is this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:I barely got any sleep last night so I'm going to take the Rational decision and have a midday siesta rather than deal with this right now, but I really feel like this bullshit in particular ought to be addressed before I do. All of which is completely true in THIS System but my whole argument is that this System is inherent corrupt and cannot be anything except oppressive so examples of how our system fails does not really convince me that my proposed one would be worse? Sharkie posted:What level of human suffering would you be willing to tolerate if it meant society adhered to your principles? If you want to break it down into specifics like "I would tolerate (x)% increase in cancer," or "I would tolerate infant mortality going up by (x)%," that's fine. I want to make sure you understand that I do not think the costs would be very high except perhaps in the period of transition but I would accept the extinction of humankind if that was the inevitable consequence of following proper Principles. I am weak personally and I do not have all the courage of my convictions so I do not expect us to render ourselves extinct and it is contrary to our biological Imperatives anyway so I bet if it was proven to be the case we would not actually act on it. But you know Rorshach in Watchmen? Not the movie version but the comic book? I think a lot of what he says is stupid fascist stuff but right at the end when he refuses to compromise "Even in the face of armageddon" I think that is 100% correct and an idea everyone should strive to live for. Literally The Worst posted:Hi yes I feel this is a good picture for this thread Yes! Okay so I do not think the Constitution is a good guarantor of those things but this is a pretty good way to visualize what I am talking about here. I think a government CAN enforce negative Rights in the short to medium term (but will never protect them all and always be corrupted) but positive 'rights' are a fallacy. You can say "This is a good Idea" and that is fair if you A) Believe it will be properly implemented and B) Be safe from corruption and C) It does not conflict with or is more important than other Principles (though as I have said calling efficiency a Principle is pretty baseless) but that is all different from Morally defending and justifying it. Igiari posted:Plastics, others have mentioned (to you and jrod) that some things, like the infrastructure is cities, the Internet, medicines etc. came about because of the state. What I wanna know is, do you think the state is something we needed to get all those things, but we can get rid of it now that we've reached this level of development, and if not why not, or do you think the state is a historical aberration, and if so why has this aberration been so successful in things like curing disease, facilitating communication etc? Okay so I think that we can call this the "fascism fallacy" or something like that! Like the myth about Mussolini making the trains run on time. States have managed to do some things effectively (like mount enormous wars of conquest and invent biological and chemical and and nuclear weapons and commit genocides) because they can point at something and tell people "Do this" ("Or you will be punished" is only sometimes implicit). When they get something right it can work well or it can be mired in corruption and when it works well it looks like "Hey Government did a good job vaccinating against polio" and yes they really do beneficial things sometimes but beneficial is not the same as Good. Nolanar posted:As long as we're dredging up the classics: This is a good question and I am not sure I have a perfect answer to it but I have thought about this myself so I will see what I can offer! Okay so basically the idea is one I think I mentioned earlier where I said that anarchy that occurs because of a dysfunctional or violent collapse of society is very VERY different from the anarchy that would result from a deliberate choice to implement it by a society that expected it and was ready for it. So to compare if we pretend that tomorrow morning America has become a medieval English monarchy with a King and Dukes and so forth a huge number of people would have a lot of trouble in the system and it would probably collapse before long either because people actively Rebelled or because people were not equipped to face that world. The same thing is true here! If I had a button that got rid of all governments tomorrow I would NOT press it. First of all it would not be Wrong because inaction can not have Moral value but even if it did I would be willing to allow systems I consider Evil to continue existing exactly because I know that "if all existing dissolved tomorrow" it would not take long at all for people to put new Governments in place. That is a pretty ridiculous sounding example but that is the point because you are only allowing the unrealistic position that anarchism can not work if it is imposed on them. Well I agree with that and that is why I try to convince people to change their minds and go through political and social and cultural evolution towards this point. Alien Arcana posted:Tell me, would you agree with the below? Because it sounds a lot like what you're saying. I think the first paragraph there is BRILLIANT! I do not agree with the rest of it and I think helping other people is a very Good thing to do. We are all better off when we all help each other and protect each other. RuanGacho posted:Libertarians keep stealing my labor as a government worker and I have no legal recourse for suing them as they try to avoid taxes and civic responsibility. I am not sure how any theft is being committed except where people succeed in not paying taxes? And that is a lot more likely to happen in corporate cronyism than libertarianism because you can not be protected by a Government if it does not exist! And I also think a lot more people who claim welfare entitlements or government jobs aside from you are stealing your labor just how you are stealing that of your colleagues/ Pththya-lyi posted:Yeah, if your property is equivalent to yourself, and you can sell anything that belongs to you, why shouldn't you be able to sell yourself? The government is depriving us of our Reason-given right to give up all our rights! I agree completely! I know you are being sarcastic but this is completely true - what right does someone ELSE have to tell me how I am allowed to dispense with my OWN Rights? What they are ultimately doing and the reason at the heart of ALL my arguments is they are telling me what I am allowed to do with my own Mind. I know what my Rights are. I insist on them being respected and yes I will use Government to do that where it is possible because that is just the world we live in today and I admit my hypocrisy here. What Government does at the same time is telling me that I do NOT know what my own Rights are and that I do NOT have the most fundamental Right of all, to use my Rights as I see fit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:That "child" is a Slave by the governMent, who Cruelly prevented Him from exploring ALTernative means to paY for his CANCER treaTMEnt. sHOW some entrepreneurial spirit; He could have SolD Himself into slaverY! IT'S A FREE choice between slavery and Death, but He was robbed of THAT choICE because the GoVeRnMeNt paid for his Treatment/organizeD SUBSIDIES to HELP buy INSURANCE dependING on if He lives in CivilIzation or not. I'm disappointed the capital letters don't spell out a hidden message. CommieGIR posted:Someone selling unsafe and downright dangerous products free from oversight is not enhancing someon's ability to think for themselves. Its hard to 'think for yourself' if its impossible to verify any of the conditions that may be life threatening without a full lab setup. Full lab setup nothing. Being properly sure about medicine requires years of human testing and review, and those are years you don't have to lose with the looming cholera epidemic that would inevitably result from our complete abolition of coercive government sewage treatment. Which is why you should skip all that boring crap and by Dr. Nolanar's Health Tonic! Guaranteed to be fully vetted by our unique SpeedTrial system! Rated AAA for safety by Health Product Reviews, which was rated AA+ for accurate reviews by Product Review Reviews, which was rated AAA Prime by
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Plastics posted:I want to make sure you understand that I do not think the costs would be very high except perhaps in the period of transition but I would accept the extinction of humankind if that was the inevitable consequence of following proper Principles. Very evil, and very stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Plastics, how can you say that taxation is theft when you have already admitted that you willingly choose to pay your taxes. By your own definitions it is literally impossible for taxation to be theft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Plastics posted:I want to make sure you understand that I do not think the costs would be very high except perhaps in the period of transition but I would accept the extinction of humankind if that was the inevitable consequence of following proper Principles.  Uhhhh...what? What are principles for? Why do we even invent rules for how we should act and treat each other? E: Maybe I am weird but if it could be proven that the axioms of my pet moral system would lead inevitably to the extinction of the entire human race, that would be a pretty good reason to go back and fix my theory of ethics, not go "okay thanks for deriving that the genocide of humanity is The Most Moral Thing, it must be so QED" 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Plastics, how can you say that taxation is theft when you have already admitted that you willingly choose to pay your taxes. By your own definitions it is literally impossible for taxation to be theft. This is why plastics is my second favorite libertarian this thread has ever gotten. (Its hard to beat jrod, because of the good old "go through the thread replying to every post, conspicuously leaving out the ones he has no argument against.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Plastics posted:All of which is completely true in THIS System but my whole argument is that this System is inherent corrupt and cannot be anything except oppressive so examples of how our system fails does not really convince me that my proposed one would be worse?  Ah, the ever popular 'No True Scotsman' defense. Do you have anything other than your opinion that would indicate that this would be any different in your hypothetical society? Because Logic dictates that it would actually be much worse. Consider, the explination for why parental income is so important is pretty drat obvious. If you are born to a wealthy family you have the advantages of wealth. Sure there are the obvious ones, you can attend the best schools, get tutors when needed, benefit from nepotism and so forth. But there are also the less obvious but just as important aspects. A wealthy family is more likely to have time to spend parenting their children as they are not struggling to make ends meat. Wealthy families can likewise afford food and medical care for their children, things that are basic building blocks that will determine whether a child succeeds or fails as an adult. The reverse is also true. A child born into a poor household will be less likely to afford things like education, to say nothing of tutors. They won't be able to attend additional programs and they sure as gently caress won't benefit from nepotism. They eat poor, barely see their parents, may or may not get the medical care they need. Even something as simple as not getting glasses can gently caress a child up for the rest of their lives. Note that none of this requires government. This division is a basic aspect of human nature, one that government can certainly do its best to moderate via social programs such as SNAP, TANF, EI and others, but it isn't something that is caused by the government. So my question is this, do you have any evidence at all to suggest that this would be better absent government regulation? Because as far as I can see, absent regulation the floor would be pulled out from under the poor and all restraints placed on the rich would be removed. It is no mistake that as financial and other regulations have weakened since the eighties income inequality has increased. Or I suppose the question might be, do you care? Do you consider this a feature and not a bug? I have to believe you care because your entire ideology is based on meritocracy, something that is blatantly impossible when one person starts steps from the finish line and tens of million start in Denver. quote:I want to make sure you understand that I do not think the costs would be very high except perhaps in the period of transition but I would accept the extinction of humankind if that was the inevitable consequence of following proper Principles. I am weak personally and I do not have all the courage of my convictions so I do not expect us to render ourselves extinct and it is contrary to our biological Imperatives anyway so I bet if it was proven to be the case we would not actually act on it. But you know Rorshach in Watchmen? Not the movie version but the comic book? I think a lot of what he says is stupid fascist stuff but right at the end when he refuses to compromise "Even in the face of armageddon" I think that is 100% correct and an idea everyone should strive to live for. You realize that Rorschach is a psychopathic lunatic who is intended to be as much a villain in the story as anyone else? You are not suppose to agree with him. That said I have to say, you are one screwed up person. You've yet to provide one iota of proof for your objective principles, or even the methodology you used to determine them, yet you think the death of every living human would be an acceptable consequence of following your Principles if it had to be. At this point i'm almost willing to say you are trolling because it is just baffling to me. I need to know, how did you come upon your specific Principles? These objective facts that are worth more than all human life had to come from some great realization certainly. Tell me more. quote:Yes! Okay so I do not think the Constitution is a good guarantor of those things but this is a pretty good way to visualize what I am talking about here. I think a government CAN enforce negative Rights in the short to medium term (but will never protect them all and always be corrupted) but positive 'rights' are a fallacy. You can say "This is a good Idea" and that is fair if you A) Believe it will be properly implemented and B) Be safe from corruption and C) It does not conflict with or is more important than other Principles (though as I have said calling efficiency a Principle is pretty baseless) but that is all different from Morally defending and justifying it. Toblerone Triangle! Is that you! I've heard tales whispered of only in dark corners of SA... could it be? To explain, that image was created by one of the greatest trolls in internet history, a man who spent ages undercover playing a purestrain goldbug to the hilt. It is not, in any way meant to be taken seriously, and the fact that you DO take it seriously is either disturbing or hilarious, I can't decide which even when pressed. Both? Positive and Negative rights are an illusion. There is literally no difference between a positive and a negative right because both are fictions developed by humans. If we agree together that you have the right to live, then we are also capable of agreeing together that you have the right to medical care, even if it is a right we are not always entirely able to fulfil. quote:Okay so I think that we can call this the "fascism fallacy" or something like that! Like the myth about Mussolini making the trains run on time. States have managed to do some things effectively (like mount enormous wars of conquest and invent biological and chemical and and nuclear weapons and commit genocides) because they can point at something and tell people "Do this" ("Or you will be punished" is only sometimes implicit). When they get something right it can work well or it can be mired in corruption and when it works well it looks like "Hey Government did a good job vaccinating against polio" and yes they really do beneficial things sometimes but beneficial is not the same as Good. The Polio Vaccine: Not Good. You see why people have a problem with you right? You take something that is unequivocally good to the rest of humanity and you argue that it is in fact Not Good because it doesn't fit your arbitrary morality. This is why I'm harping so much on your morality being objective. You've given no evidence on how you even arrived at the place you feel is the 'correct' morality but you continue to talk as though you have the one universal answer as to what is and is not good. quote:This is a good question and I am not sure I have a perfect answer to it but I have thought about this myself so I will see what I can offer! Okay so basically the idea is one I think I mentioned earlier where I said that anarchy that occurs because of a dysfunctional or violent collapse of society is very VERY different from the anarchy that would result from a deliberate choice to implement it by a society that expected it and was ready for it. So to compare if we pretend that tomorrow morning America has become a medieval English monarchy with a King and Dukes and so forth a huge number of people would have a lot of trouble in the system and it would probably collapse before long either because people actively Rebelled or because people were not equipped to face that world. The same thing is true here! If I had a button that got rid of all governments tomorrow I would NOT press it. First of all it would not be Wrong because inaction can not have Moral value but even if it did I would be willing to allow systems I consider Evil to continue existing exactly because I know that "if all existing dissolved tomorrow" it would not take long at all for people to put new Governments in place. That is a pretty ridiculous sounding example but that is the point because you are only allowing the unrealistic position that anarchism can not work if it is imposed on them. Well I agree with that and that is why I try to convince people to change their minds and go through political and social and cultural evolution towards this point. Okay there is a whole lot of crazy here but I want to bold one particular bit and address that. How can inaction not have moral value? Screw the economics discussion for a second and actually think logically about this. The president has just given the launch codes for every nuke on the planet to be fired. Through some twist of fate you have the code to countermand his order. You know the president to be suffering from a psychotic break and that there is no threat worthy of nuclear retaliation. Inaction will result in the deaths of billions of people, action will cost you nothing. You are arguing that inaction in this case is not in and of itself an immoral action. To this I respond with the following. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEzgc_ne60&t=69s quote:I think the first paragraph there is BRILLIANT! I do not agree with the rest of it and I think helping other people is a very Good thing to do. We are all better off when we all help each other and protect each other. Wow, you agree with the first paragraph of a fantasy definition of evil. Coolbeans quote:I agree completely! I know you are being sarcastic but this is completely true - what right does someone ELSE have to tell me how I am allowed to dispense with my OWN Rights? What they are ultimately doing and the reason at the heart of ALL my arguments is they are telling me what I am allowed to do with my own Mind. I know what my Rights are. I insist on them being respected and yes I will use Government to do that where it is possible because that is just the world we live in today and I admit my hypocrisy here. What Government does at the same time is telling me that I do NOT know what my own Rights are and that I do NOT have the most fundamental Right of all, to use my Rights as I see fit. Well the simple answer is because in absence of the government being able to do that we will have many, many people 'willingly' selling themselves into slavery in a way that is anything but willing. But of course you don't care because gently caress consequences in the face of your weird definition of freedom. Seriously tho, time to fess up, which goon are you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Plastics is of the opinion that his Principles are actually an Objective Universal Truth. He has provided no reason as to why he believes this, just that he does. Human life is worthless next to Principles and we would all be better off dead than red I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:Plastics is of the opinion that his Principles are actually an Objective Universal Truth. He has provided no reason as to why he believes this, just that he does. Human life is worthless next to Principles and we would all be better off dead than red I suppose. But he also admits to being too much of a pussy to ever actually live by any of his own principles, which really makes me wonder why he even believes in them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Oh wow. WOW. Plastics, you've convinced me, I will follow you into this glorious future. Please, start us off on the revolution to libertopia by asserting your sovereign rights via Ak-47 in front of that tyrant Obummer's white hut, I promise I will be along shortly to aide you in our putsch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But he also admits to being too much of a pussy to ever actually live by any of his own principles, which really makes me wonder why he even believes in them in the first place. Its honestly very similar to arguing with Kyrie about God. Kyrie at one point admitted that we are all God's slaves and that we should worship him and follow his insane commands because that is the point of creation. Plastics seems to be on the same take here, where following the 'rules' of the universe is more important than anything else, though at least Kyrie had some argument as to God in general, whereas Plastics expects us to just believe him that he has found the one true unequivocable source of morals and that it just so happens to be libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Plastics posted:\Yes! Okay so I do not think the Constitution is a good guarantor of those things but this is a pretty good way to visualize what I am talking about here. I think a government CAN enforce negative Rights in the short to medium term (but will never protect them all and always be corrupted) but positive 'rights' are a fallacy. You can say "This is a good Idea" and that is fair if you A) Believe it will be properly implemented and B) Be safe from corruption and C) It does not conflict with or is more important than other Principles (though as I have said calling efficiency a Principle is pretty baseless) but that is all different from Morally defending and justifying it. you are responding in earnet to an image made by a man who was pretending to be a loving lunatic Seriously guys he responded to TobleroneTriangular.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
You all realize the Plastics is probably a schizophrenic or a troll pretending to be one right? Capitalizing words to indicate that they represent concepts related to but inexpressible by English words is a hallmark. PJ still does it on and off, and she's medicated and lucid. Soviet Commubot posted:This all still makes zero sense, sorry BrandorKP is sort of correct, he just left out the part where this is something mentally ill people do. Especially without trying to define the difference first. Then that's just philosophy
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Plastics is of the opinion that his Principles are actually an Objective Universal Truth. He has provided no reason as to why he believes this, just that he does. Human life is worthless next to Principles and we would all be better off dead than red I suppose. He's rolling " ultimately comes from our factual mental individuality" so human reason is his reason. And of course it looks the same as Kyrie, basically the difference is the different the sources (human reason vs revelatory reason) of the absolute moral law. Who What Now posted:But he also admits to being too much of a pussy to ever actually live by any of his own principles, which really makes me wonder why he even believes in them in the first place. "The old woman was a mistake perhaps, but she’s not the point! The old woman was merely a sickness . . . I was in a hurry to step over . . . it wasn’t a human being I killed, it was a principle! So I killed the principle, but I didn’t step over, I stayed on this side . . . All I managed to do was kill. And I didn’t even manage that, as it turns out . . ." -Raskolnikov
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Plastics, how can you say that taxation is theft when you have already admitted that you willingly choose to pay your taxes. By your own definitions it is literally impossible for taxation to be theft. No it is not! It is possible for me to be a hypocrite and not live up to my beliefs all the time (the same as anyone else) and more importantly I have chosen to pay my taxes because I believe that ending taxes has to be done in a particular way. That does not even begin to say that taxes are not theft! VitalSigns posted:
Okay so by your standards the thing is that those are not actually Principles. They are guidelines or at most Rules that are often written into Law. But they are not Principles if they are not derived from some underlying, well PRINCIPLE. Just saying "I want to not do Harm and do more Good" is fine but that is where it ends for Statists like you all. It has no basis except what feels best rather than being derived from a logical position. My logical position is that because Minds are independent from each other we are objectively separate from each other so ALL interaction should be as voluntary as possible. Caros posted:
But without the Government interfering those people who have a worse start would be better placed to improve themselves. Without the burden of taxation people could afford more things for themselves and their children while working less and with regulation being reduced and voluntary people could take their own INFORMED risks instead of being constrained by government. Also though I am reminded by a quote which I can not remember perfectly now but it is something like "There has never been so insane a system as one based on the transparent lie that all men are equal." Of course we are not equal! If we were there would be no debates and no differences of opinion. Equality is a false idea that is really the imposition of sameness! Anarchy would free us from this by letting people fall into their natural and appropriate places by the rewards a free society gave them for the things they do and the things they Make. quote:You realize that Rorschach is a psychopathic lunatic who is intended to be as much a villain in the story as anyone else? You are not suppose to agree with him. Yes in many ways that is completely true but I said that above. It is the ONE thing that I think he is completely right. quote:That said I have to say, you are one screwed up person. You've yet to provide one iota of proof for your objective principles, or even the methodology you used to determine them, yet you think the death of every living human would be an acceptable consequence of following your Principles if it had to be. At this point i'm almost willing to say you are trolling because it is just baffling to me. There is no point to anything at all if an Objective reality does not exist or can not be discovered. Maybe that is true and that there really IS no point to anything at all but I do not think I can face that possibility so I sought answers elsewhere. I do not think that deaths are beneficial or Good but if they come about because of consistent application of Moral principles based on our individuality they are not Evil either. But what I realized that was most important of all is that Consequences do not have moral value. Only the Act itself matters and the Morality of the Act depends on personal freedom and the free association of everyone involved. The universe itself imposes all kinds of things on us but I will talk about that in a minute. quote:To explain, that image was created by one of the greatest trolls in internet history, a man who spent ages undercover playing a purestrain goldbug to the hilt. It is not, in any way meant to be taken seriously, and the fact that you DO take it seriously is either disturbing or hilarious, I can't decide which even when pressed. Both? Positive and negative Rights might be an illusion if ALL rights are an illusion but the idea that they are the same thing and there is no difference between the Morality of refraining from something and the Morality of forcing something upon people is really strange. Even if you think they are both good you have to admit they are different and that this is why political philosophers came up with the ideas and very few of those who believe in it are or were libertarians! I do not really care who came up with that picture or why because only the content of it matters and the content is a VERY good demonstration of the difference between the two. quote:Okay there is a whole lot of crazy here but I want to bold one particular bit and address that. Okay so I will carry on what I said about the universe here. If inaction has Moral weight then the universe is itself monumentally and shockingly and amazingly Evil. Every time someone drowns and does not get helped or they starve to death or encounter any kind of pain or suffering that results from the universe at large an Evil Action, or Inaction, is taking place. I think we would all agree that is a pretty weird position to take! But few people follow it to its conclusion. If you could do something but do not that does not make you Evil because it is no different than if you were not there in the first place. Unless you DO think the universe itself is Evil then inaction by definition cannot have weight because only Action can. Like how only matter can have mass, only Moral Action can have 'Moral Mass'. Another way of looking at it is this. If Inaction can be Evil then Inaction must also be capable of being Good. Assuming that someone is in decent physical health they very probably have the ability to kill people but they do not do it but I bet nobody in this thread is going to argue that they are as Good as a person who lets someone die is Evil. But these are EXACTLY the same in every facet. The only way this can be reconciled is that you like one outcome more than the other but as I have explained I do not believe that is a valid basis for Morality and if nothing else it means that in your system a person who does commit murder is as moral as the person who does not, because they are just doing something where they like one outcome (someone else's death) more than the other one (not killing someone).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:You all realize the Plastics is probably a schizophrenic or a troll pretending to be one right? Insanity is no excuse for libertarianism. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Caro was a paranoid schizophrenic and he came within like 5 blocks of killing a brutal power mad dictator. Plastics just sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Plastics is kinda boring, his talking points are all canned libertarian responses verbatim with no attempt to obfuscate the underlying moral degeneracy unlike with Jrod. Getting plastics to say dumb and reprehensible poo poo is easy he just does it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Plastics we are all demons and we're coming to eat your brains and feed you your own eyes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No it is not! It is possible for me to be a hypocrite and not live up to my beliefs all the time (the same as anyone else) and more importantly I have chosen to pay my taxes because I believe that ending taxes has to be done in a particular way. That does not even begin to say that taxes are not theft! Sorry, kiddo, but words have meanings. Theft is an unlawful or unwilling seizing of property. But you've already admitted that you are choosing, willingly, to pay your taxes. Thus taxes cannot possibly be theft by your own admission because they are neither unlawful nor are they unwilling. I'm sorry that you don't want to admit this but thems the breaks, sport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so by your standards the thing is that those are not actually Principles. They are guidelines or at most Rules that are often written into Law. But they are not Principles if they are not derived from some underlying, well PRINCIPLE. Just saying "I want to not do Harm and do more Good" is fine but that is where it ends for Statists like you all. It has no basis except what feels best rather than being derived from a logical position. My logical position is that because Minds are independent from each other we are objectively separate from each other so ALL interaction should be as voluntary as possible. Why. If the outcome is better when some interactions are not voluntary, like mandatory vaccination, why isn't that better? All interaction can't be voluntary anyway because we live in a physical world. Your choice not to vaccinate your kids means that my kids are involuntarily more likely to be exposed to crippling and deadly diseases, for example. Plastics posted:But without the Government interfering those people who have a worse start would be better placed to improve themselves. Without the burden of taxation people could afford more things for themselves and their children while working less and with regulation being reduced and voluntary people could take their own INFORMED risks instead of being constrained by government. Also though I am reminded by a quote which I can not remember perfectly now but it is something like "There has never been so insane a system as one based on the transparent lie that all men are equal." Of course we are not equal! If we were there would be no debates and no differences of opinion. Equality is a false idea that is really the imposition of sameness! Anarchy would free us from this by letting people fall into their natural and appropriate places by the rewards a free society gave them for the things they do and the things they Make.a person who does commit murder is as moral as the person who does not, because they are just doing something where they like one outcome (someone else's death) more than the other one (not killing someone). You are not an anarchist and you do not support anarchy. You support the right of a small aristocracy to fence off the planet's land and resources (or, really, to inherit these from their parents and grandparents back to whoever did the fencing), extract rents from the rest of humanity for access to the resources they hold hostage, and generally make law and enforce their will absolutely because they own the land and the means of production. What you support is feudalism, and we already tried that, and it sucks (not that whether it sucks or not matters to you, since you've already said your axioms are more important than the survival of the entire human race). Actually what you support is worse than feudalism, because you don't even want the social obligations the manor lord had to feed and house his serfs, what you really support is enclosure and its attendant Dickensian nightmare of poverty and death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Plastics, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you expect people working paycheck-to-paycheck with two jobs and multiple kids to have enough time to research everything they could possibly encounter or purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:You all realize the Plastics is probably a schizophrenic or a troll pretending to be one right? Capitalizing words to indicate that they represent concepts related to but inexpressible by English words is a hallmark. PJ still does it on and off, and she's medicated and lucid. I don't think Plastics is a schizophrenic. I think that some of the Austrians were looking to express exactly that, that certain words they use are "related to but inexpressible by English words". Different Austrians are capitalizing different words. Then it gets telephone gamed through other people writing about them. Then the new libertarian looks at these various systematics and tries to follow the conventions of the systematics. More confusing one might come to something like this already in line with the definitions. Take me as an example. Sin, faith, and grace, I already basically was in line with Tillich's definitions, when I started using them. The communities I participated in, basically in line with the same understanding of the terms. Use them here, no one knew what the gently caress. Initially not having experience communicating those differences, there might as well as been different languages being spoken. I don' think he is crazy, I don't think he's pretending. I think it is a predictable thing that is a consequence of how these types of beleifs are structured.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Not an Owl posted:Plastics, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you expect people working paycheck-to-paycheck with two jobs and multiple kids to have enough time to research everything they could possibly encounter or purchase. I'm paraphrasing here but, "DIE! PARASITE! DIE!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Not an Owl posted:Plastics, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you expect people working paycheck-to-paycheck with two jobs and multiple kids to have enough time to research everything they could possibly encounter or purchase. He doesn't expect them to, those people deserve to die of kidney failure from cough syrup made with cut-rate glycerine from China that turns out to have been relabeled ethylene glycol. Should have tracked down every ingredient, inspected the supply chain, followed everything back to the manufacturer and evaluated their processes, proles!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Caro was a paranoid schizophrenic and he came within like 5 blocks of killing a brutal power mad dictator. Plastics just sucks. Okay that was like one time and I didn't eve... oh... wait, caro. My bad. quote:Okay so by your standards the thing is that those are not actually Principles. They are guidelines or at most Rules that are often written into Law. But they are not Principles if they are not derived from some underlying, well PRINCIPLE. Just saying "I want to not do Harm and do more Good" is fine but that is where it ends for Statists like you all. It has no basis except what feels best rather than being derived from a logical position. My logical position is that because Minds are independent from each other we are objectively separate from each other so ALL interaction should be as voluntary as possible. Oooh, busting out Statists. poo poo just got real. Your craziness doesn't appear to be derived from any factual underlying principle either, just FYI. Thanks for clarifying it a bit more. So far from what I've ready you fall into a weird Voluntarist subgroup that I've not yet come across, which makes it fascinating to study you in the wild. Right now you appear to be suffering from the usual problem that their 'logic' has in that your logical position is essentially made up wholesale. Let me explain. If we take the bolded text above as your Principles, I hate to break it to you, but they are as arbitrary as anyone else's morality. First off logic in and of itself does not make something correct. I can start from the Logical principle that jews are subhuman scum, and from that derive that the holocaust was a boon to all mankind but the fact that I can logically get from A to B does not make it correct or an idea worth devoting one's self to. With sufficient logic and a starting point you can prove more or less any point. Moreover, you are making a HUGE logical leap. Watch: My logical position is that because Minds are independent from each other we are objectively separate from each other so ALL interaction should be as violent as possible. I've just replaced one word in your statement, can you spot which one? You notice how the argument still holds its structure? That is because your logical position is vapid and pointless. I could have replaced it with loving, sexual, terrifying or any number of other words and it would make as much sense as it did when you said it. You are going from "We are objectively separate" to "All interaction should be as voluntary as possible" without providing any explanation." My debate teacher would have you strung up by your toes for this sort of argument. quote:But without the Government interfering those people who have a worse start would be better placed to improve themselves. Without the burden of taxation people could afford more things for themselves and their children while working less and with regulation being reduced and voluntary people could take their own INFORMED risks instead of being constrained by government. Also though I am reminded by a quote which I can not remember perfectly now but it is something like "There has never been so insane a system as one based on the transparent lie that all men are equal." Of course we are not equal! If we were there would be no debates and no differences of opinion. Equality is a false idea that is really the imposition of sameness! Anarchy would free us from this by letting people fall into their natural and appropriate places by the rewards a free society gave them for the things they do and the things they Make. [Citation Needed] You do realize that in the absence of taxation every single thing that people pay for now would have to be paid for on the individual level or not at all. This means that programs like social security, medicare/caid/SNAP would go the way of the dinosaur, all of which are programs which are most helpful to those with low incomes. It isn't like people stop needing police, or fire, or food inspection, or water safety, or highway infrastructure or basically any of a nearly infinite number of things that you take for granted. At best the loss of the 'burden' of taxation would be replaced with the burden of paying for these agencies at a 1:1 or slightly less ratio in your favor. At worst, and more likely, many of these things would vastly increase in cost. We know for example that medical care in the UK costs less than half of what it does in the US because of effective bargaining and the benefits of a single insurerer among other things. What reason do we have to believe that policing costs, or highways or any number of other programs won't increase in cost as a result of their privatization? We've already discussed how having multiple FDA's all repeating the same work of a single agency would likely cost significantly more for little to no benefit. Why wouldn't this just be duplicated on a societal scale? Also why would poor families (the people most hosed) be working less in a system that has no minimum wage and thus has significant downward pressure on wages? Christ I'm still in the first half of this paragraph. As for your bullshit about equality, that is my loving point. You are arguing that people would fall into their place as dictated by society, but what this actually means is that people who are born poor will be stuck in generational poverty without even the crumbs we throw them today. Nothing you have suggested here counteracts the massive advantages that being born the child of someone who is rich will bestow upon you over being born the child of someone poor. You are embracing the uterine lottery as the driving force of humanity and are essentially arguing in favor of a caste system. I am not arguing that everyone be made equal because that is impossible. I am arguing that if we want to pretend that people get what they deserve then we at least have to work to make sure that everyone starts at roughly the same place, otherwise you have a world of men like Donald Trumps bragging about how successful they are because they work hard while ignoring the fact that there are millions who work as hard if not harder who never rise above crushing poverty because they were hosed since birth. Seriously dude does this not bother you? Do you care at all? quote:Yes in many ways that is completely true but I said that above. It is the ONE thing that I think he is completely right. No, no it is not. That argument is one that embraces a suicide pact, that giving up and embracing death is preferable to any alternative which is really hosed up. It was however a pointless measure which is pretty much a good summary of your existence. quote:There is no point to anything at all if an Objective reality does not exist or can not be discovered. Maybe that is true and that there really IS no point to anything at all but I do not think I can face that possibility so I sought answers elsewhere. I do not think that deaths are beneficial or Good but if they come about because of consistent application of Moral principles based on our individuality they are not Evil either. But what I realized that was most important of all is that Consequences do not have moral value. Only the Act itself matters and the Morality of the Act depends on personal freedom and the free association of everyone involved. The universe itself imposes all kinds of things on us but I will talk about that in a minute. You should see a psychiatrist. Sorry for the real talk but it sounds like you are trying to deal with some heavy poo poo. That out of the way, this isn't actually addressing the crux of my question. You are still stating your Principles as if they are an unbridled universal fact, but you have no way to test, prove or even really hint at why your view on it is any better than mine. I could just as easily say that the true Objective morality is "Do what is best for people" in which case your view of "Kill all humans rather than break with my weird principles" is in direct contradiction with universal law. Hell, I've even provided as much evidence as you have on the matter. Its what is getting to me about your posts, you are talking like a full on religious zealot. You aren't approaching this out of any sort of logical point of view despite what you have been saying. I would have a lot more respect for your argument if it boiled down to you admitting "This is what I think is the most moral way for humanity and I'm willing to go to the wall for it" as opposed to "This is objective universal law that I have arrived at by logic and thus it is unassailable fact." quote:Positive and negative Rights might be an illusion if ALL rights are an illusion but the idea that they are the same thing and there is no difference between the Morality of refraining from something and the Morality of forcing something upon people is really strange. Even if you think they are both good you have to admit they are different and that this is why political philosophers came up with the ideas and very few of those who believe in it are or were libertarians! I do not really care who came up with that picture or why because only the content of it matters and the content is a VERY good demonstration of the difference between the two. You're forcing your morality upon me by not allowing me to club your head in with a mallet. Society with its stupid negative rights is impeding on my ability to do what I want, which is just as messed up as the idea of positive rights. quote:Okay so I will carry on what I said about the universe here. If inaction has Moral weight then the universe is itself monumentally and shockingly and amazingly Evil. Every time someone drowns and does not get helped or they starve to death or encounter any kind of pain or suffering that results from the universe at large an Evil Action, or Inaction, is taking place. I think we would all agree that is a pretty weird position to take! But few people follow it to its conclusion. If you could do something but do not that does not make you Evil because it is no different than if you were not there in the first place. Unless you DO think the universe itself is Evil then inaction by definition cannot have weight because only Action can. Like how only matter can have mass, only Moral Action can have 'Moral Mass'. stnerap ruoy llik Sorry, I had something stuck in my internet throat there. First off let me say that we would not all agree. I don't agree for example, that the universe is a sentient thing with the ability to make decisions. To paraphrase Avatar: The Last Airbender, if I throw you overboard the tides have already made up their minds about whether or not to smash you against the rocks, whereas I am mulling it over. If someone drowns because there is no one around to save them that is not a sin of inaction because there was no-one there to act in the first place. Choosing to stand by and watch that person drown, on the other hand, requires a person to make a conscious decision not to do so. If you choose not to act you still have made a choice. The fact that you have the chance to do something and choose not to makes you culpable. It makes you culpable in law and even in your warped system I find it silly that you think it absolves you because the universe is just doing what it is doing. quote:Another way of looking at it is this. If Inaction can be Evil then Inaction must also be capable of being Good. Assuming that someone is in decent physical health they very probably have the ability to kill people but they do not do it but I bet nobody in this thread is going to argue that they are as Good as a person who lets someone die is Evil. But these are EXACTLY the same in every facet. The only way this can be reconciled is that you like one outcome more than the other but as I have explained I do not believe that is a valid basis for Morality and if nothing else it means that in your system a person who does commit murder is as moral as the person who does not, because they are just doing something where they like one outcome (someone else's death) more than the other one (not killing someone). I suppose I should be shocked that you lack the ability to understand nuance, yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Plastics we are all demons and we're coming to eat your brains and feed you your own eyes. You're all angels trying to lead him towards the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You're all angels trying to lead him towards the truth. Demons and angels are one and the same. *blasts Linkin Park*
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Plastics as Kyrie parachute/sock puppet account? I begin to doubt his sincerity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Plastics posted:My logical position is that because Minds are independent from each other we are objectively separate from each other so ALL interaction should be as voluntary as possible. I personally am not going to argue against this! Letting people make their own choices is definitely a good thing. I merely hold that having a strong government that ensures equal opportunity and safety for everyone will maximize voluntary action. You have provided no substantial argument demonstrating that people will actually have more meaningful choices in their lives in Libertopia. Remember: you are proposing a change to our existing system. The burden of proof to show that your proposal is better is on you, not on us to defend the existing system (which many of us believe is flawed, and have our own ideas on how we can improve it.) Besides, as you have yourself argued, it is a voluntary action for you to surrender your money to a mugger. Therefore it is voluntary for you to give taxes. You haven't explained how that sacrifices your rights at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:*blasts Linkin Park* ugh. Naw, Dock Boggs tonight : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYNoH99Guc
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Plastics posted:
My people and I build society and make it quietly work without incident, we provide services and infrastructure. One of those services is general welfare. The only people trying to take services without civic responsibility are anti government types. It should be offensive to any libertarian to steal labor and resources they haven't paid for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Hello thread. I would rather see every man, woman, and child on earth wiped out by a new EbolasuperAIDS pandemic if the only way to stop it were a Big Government mandatory universal vaccination scheme. Now let me tell you my other ideas on how to create the Goodest Moralest Society...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 08:54
|
|