cmac3721

what does "upb" mean.

Example: I cant go around pulling people over for traffic violations. I can't drive a back hoe down the street, I can't drive an 18 wheeler. So person x can't always do why from a universal perspective. his would be reality, once again, proving the "If that guy with training can do it, me without training can as well" crap to be ..well.. crap. Its why we trust the police and military to have weapons in DC, but we dont trust say ... a bunch of people threatening the government to have weapons in DC.

Ok I was using this as a premise for debate, and the below paragraphs were a few counters that I didn't know how to answer, training and profession would PREVENT just any Person X FROM DOING Y wouldn't it, you can't just operate on somebody without training, or become a machinist etc., doesn't that debunk it?

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it. Because again, what person x does is not fine if person y does it. I mean, its fine you believe in that myth, but there are things that person x can and should do that person y cant due to say ..training and profession Police, doctors, pilots, soldiers, heavy equipment operators, vets, dentists, food inspectors, the list goes on and on things that person X can do, because of training and their job, that person y can't do. example: I cant go around pulling people over for traffic violations. I can't drive a back hoe down the street, I can't drive an 18 wheeler.

I'm confused about the training aspect, it seems their are somethings people can't do which makes the argument non-universal.

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it. Because again, what person x does is not fine if person y does it. I mean, its fine you believe in that myth, but there are things that person x can and should do that person y cant due to say ..training and profession Police, doctors, pilots, soldiers, heavy equipment operators, vets, dentists, food inspectors, the list goes on and on things that person X can do, because of training and their job, that person y can't do. example: I cant go around pulling people over for traffic violations. I can't drive a back hoe down the street, I can't drive an 18 wheeler.

How wasn't it though, they used thugs threats and intimidation to get their needs. (Much like government does with everything) sorry I'm battiling with a statist, and I had trouble with this one.

How did the government aid the standard of oil trust, any specifics?

Isn't the "the standard oil trust" an example of a dangerous cartel or monopoly that was able to thrive without the help of government intervention? Didn't government aid in busting up this monopoloy instead of enhancing it???