[against UPB]

this is a response I got from someone when I proposed the idea of universal ethics:

 

To be considered "universal" a principal must be accepted by any and all people regardless of race, creed, or historical era. It is demonstrable that people's attitudes towards violence, including murder, have changed over the centuries. Even within my 42 years most people's moral stance on things like same sex marriage, racism, disciplining children, gender relationships/roles, etc. have changed radically. There have been times and societies where people have been considered to be property and killing your human property was not considered to be a crime, much less a moral or ethical problem. In today's world there are plenty of religions who see us infidels as disposable, beneath contempt and fit to be killed. Heck, they get to got to heaven with a bunch of eager virgins if they succeed. And, if we go by population numbers, they are the majority! In essence in wanting to find, or claiming there are in fact universal rules you are basically agreeing that people "vote" on morality. This is in fact true. Morals are social constructs (which several posts have already mentioned) they are the product of the people and the era in which they are found and they frequently change. This is to say nothing of things like Utilitarianism (see J.S. Mill) which holds, at a basic level, "...that the proper course of action is the one that maximizesutility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." This is a difficult to prove, more difficult to use, Mill tried.

My take is that morality/ethics is basically conforming to social convention.

Consider: 
a. Stealing is wrong
b. allowing someone to die is wrong

(wrong is shorthand for immoral or unethical, as you like)

Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.

Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?

Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.


The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

[how would you respond to this?]

how about this one:  

 

but as far as the problem of electing people who are ruled by self interest, what choice is there? Can you realistically imagine life without law? It would be the Wild West without sherrifs and Marshall's. Very quickly people would band together to form a town or collective or something to protect the people who make against the strong who take. As soon as we start working together people need a leader. The leader, in my fictitious scenario, as well as our real life, must share at least some ideals/values/ desires/interests as the people he or she leads, right? Otherwise, who would follow?

On the flip side is the roving gangs of thugs led by the strongest thug. His leadership is based on personal strength and the ability to plan and execute raids or hunts which net the group food and resources so they continue to survive. Essentially we become like packs of wolves.

neither scenario seems better to me than what we have now.

So, yes, democracy has it's flaws, but it is the best system we've come up with so far.

To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.
Louis L'Amour


It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill

 

and this one:  

 

But how could any type of punishment be administered? It's not as though other people could actually vote on it. If someone killed someone how would they be punished? The deed is done, self protection or defense of a third party would no longer apply. We would have no governing body or collective around to administer any kind or retribution or justice. What am I missing?

 

to which another guy responded with:

 

Exactly. For that matter, who determines whether someone is acting in self defence or in defence of a third party?

If anarchy is the only moral system of governance, the very act of determining whether moral principles are violated is immoral. That's why the whole notion is absurd.

[how would you respond to this?]

That's a nice narrative, but I'm here to let you know that there is a pretty good chance that you are not developing your cognitive skills by slumming with ass clowns in other various forums who will never change their minds. In other words, I've wasted much of my own life attempting to do the same. I'm sure that you're far more intelligent and better debater than I could ever hope to be—but is that worth blowing your time on?

good points Steve, I don't know the answer to that but I will consider it.  

[how would you respond to this?]

"How would this be handled in your utopia?"

 

Designed to make the anarchist look like the person who has fantastical ideas.  Maybe this needs to be turned around on them.  Give an example on any current injustice perpetrated by police on innocent people and ask the statist:

 

"WHY is this handled this way in YOUR utopia?"

 

The anarchy-denier is always in the unenviable position of defending things as they are.  If you are in favor of government guess what, you won.  You have exactly what you argue for.  We all are living within YOUR system.  Now YOU defend your 'utopian system' where all of these horrible things happen which are caused by government agents.

yeah, although I haven't used this approach in this particular debate, the answer to that was given - things would be worse without the state, esp a democratic one.  

I would be curious to hear about what happened in your childhood that brought you back to the lion's cage. I would then ask what happened in your childhood that has you sticking your arm back inside the lion's cage of your family of origin, and why in the world you might be expecting a different response.

 

I would also ask why you have any interest in responding to those commenting when you only have one arm left with which to type.

When I first started reading this post I thought you were suggesting this as a possible response to the the guys post - when I realized that you were addressing me I was taken aback, not in a bad way really.  It was just unexpected - and the analogy is clever enough that I got a kick out of it.  

 

are you really curious or is this a rhetorical question to make me question?  

 

certainly had manipulative and controlling parents - my dad was a bully as well.  I am competitive and like to debate, that is related to my upbringing for sure.  I find these kinds of debates help me develop my cognitive skills. 

 

Stef had a similar family environment to me.  why do you think he spends so much time debating and discussing freedom?  what do you think is going on and how do you see this situation and what a healthy perspective would look like?  

[how would you respond to this?]

this one is a little more articulate and thougthful, what say thee?

 

 

I won't enter a debate about what constitutes universal ethics, but I'll accept that you're trying to correlate the breach of these two given ideals by government and their agencies with the act of voting being tacit complicity in these acts. I see how you are essentially trying to say that government, in all forms, by virtue of the fact that they tax (taking property) and punish (under the law) and go to war(murder, maim, kill) are always breaching these 2 ideals. My point, which you're not seeing, is that gov't is actually reducing the occurrence of each of these, so having and participating in democratic gov't is the "morally superior" way of being. 

In addition, regarding #2, taxation is, by definition, NOT STEALING. It is pooling public money for public good, i.e., we are paying ourselves. The gov't is simply administrating these public funds. People grumble about paying, bitch about how the gov't spends, but we do willingly (most of us anyway) pay our tax. The threat of asset seizure or prison exists for the same reason that the criminal code has laws against murder - to try to ensure socially cooperative behaviour. IMHO, pro-social behaviour IS moral behaviour, a number of moral philosophers would agree with this ultra simple definition of morality.

As far as initiating violence (#1), the law is supposedly 100% reactive, i.e, acting in self-defense, but on behalf of the general population. Also, our country is not initiating conflicts or invading other countries. Hence, we have no moral quandary here. Our military actions are in defense of our interests, but reactionary (which you say is OK).

Once again, because democracy is a) incapable of breaches of morality, as I've explained in this post and b) gov't prevents people from acting primarily in self interest (as I've explained in previous posts), not voting is the immoral act because lack of participation in democracy is a rejection thereof which is tacit approval of antisocial acts.

[Is objective morality begging the question?]

that is the best definition of objective morality that I have seen dsayers.  simple, direct, and logically consistent.  well done.  

[how would you respond to this?]

having a political/philosophical debate on a non philosophical forum and most of the responses are the usual knee jerk reactionary stuff.  then there are these types:

 

While I believe I understand your thesis, and agree and sympathize with much of it, it is completely impractical in the real world. It's too bad, but the human race is really not capable of self government on so many levels. 

Let's use one recent situation as a test case. Here in London a couple have been charged with locking a 10 year old child in a bedroom for 2 years while his "parents" and I use the term very loosely, were "working out of the country". The authorities found out and removed the child from the household and he is now doing well.

How would this have been handled in your utopia? Please address this with the understanding that society is made up of people of all kinds, not some mythical race of godlike intelligent beings with a clear moral compass.

 

here is another one:  

 

I don't think it's a question of ethics at all. If you wish to be part of a society, collective, co-op, club or group of any kind, it requires a certain amount of give and take and rules that allow, and protect your rights and freedoms. It follows that there must be someone charged with administering that whole enchilada - be it one person, a board of governors ............... or a government. In a "free" society these administrators get voted in or out.

 

and this one:  

 

I'm fond of reminding people that, although being a social animal and having community implies compromise, there are limits to human co-operation. It would be a beautiful John Lennon-esque world if coercion was completely unnecessary, and compromise easily reached...but we always run into those limits. And because humans are the way they are, laws and rules end up being the deciders for us. That is, if WE won't co-operate, the law substitutes for the reasoning we fail to undertake.

Why ARE people "that way"? A couple of reasons, I suspect. Certainly no complete list, but one factor is that humans, unlike many simpler species, do not always synchronize their emotions. What you feel about something at this moment is not necessarily what I feel. And our feelings shape our evaluation of data, and the judgments we reach, such that, even though we may be presented with the same information at any given moment, we weight that information differently because of emotion/feelings, and arrive at different conclusions as a result.

A second reason would appear to be that values, rights, or whatever you want to call that which finds itself expressed in laws (but is not absolutely equivalent to laws) are abstract. Humans have a hard time translating those deep-seated abstract priorities/values/beliefs/rights into concrete and operational realities. We seem to spend much of our lives engaged in one or more versions of the phrase "Know what I'm saying?", in that we can't readily articulate the principles our actions are derived from. The biblical metaphor used was that Moses could not see the face of God, only the back of God's head, whilst up on the mountain producing the commandment tablets. Our most profound, and perhaps universal, beliefs are ones we are just unable to lay out on the table like an exploded Ikea assembly diagram. They exist in a sort of cloud for us. And because of that, we articulate them differently from each other and misconstrue the articulation for the underlying principle.

One of the basic premises of dispute resolution is to identify common goals and values, because vicious adversaries often have the same over-arching goals and values, and where they differ is in the implementation. To beat the metaphor to death with a stick, they're both looking at the back of the head of the same God, but from different angles, and disagreeing on what it is.

 

I would like to see how you folks would respond to these.  thanks

[Hello, I need to ask you about something]

BlackHeron, do you think it is OK for parents to have sex in front of an 8 year old?  

[Can government own land? Devil's advocate]

Land ownership is always tricky. For me it boils down to two concerns. 1. If you own land, do you set the rules for anyone else entering or occupying the land or are you required to still follow common law? 2. Why should new born be exempted from the rules? If a landlord rents out land under certain conditions and a couple living on it have three children. The couple die and the rent stops coming, Can the landowner kick the occupants off the land despite the fact that they did not enter into a contract with him? If the children should choose to stay, are they obligated to follow the rules set by the landowner?

 

Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, government may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, Aphrodite may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

[Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"]

well alexa, like is often the case with these discussions I have had with other believers, you really do have your own version of the christian belief system - esp if you think that the devil and his cohorts influence over mankind is limited to the occasional possession.   I would guess that you are just fine with god giving the devil permission to torment Job as well...  

 

I know you don't see the coercion.  you seem like a good fellow and I am sorry that you are able to accept such a violent and manipulative world view as you have described it in this creation myth - I suppose your parents/guardians had a lot to do with that.  

 

thanks for indulging me in this banter.  best of luck to you.  

[Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"]

Debating theology is like arguing over who would win in a fight between batman and wolverine. This is why there are literally tens of thousands of different christian views. Don't like the way a particular doctrine feels? Try another flavor, there is something out there for everyone.Since this is all speculative and based on scripture that gets interpreted and reinterpreted constantly, there is no way to nail a point home. Figure of speech here, metaphor there, and irony everywhere in between.I tried the line of argument about freedom because it is an appeal to emotion rather than reason and evidence which atheists generally stick to. I thought a different approach might change the game up a bit, but it didn't in this case. It is still impossible to nail the most obvious point home in the mind of a believer, and in the end he just claims victory and has his faith strengthened.I think my religious debate days are over.

Are you kidding me?  Wolverine would take Batman for sure!  

 

Yes, I agree with you on all counts Wiltin.  I thought my religious debate days were over as well but I am sometimes still fascinated by how thick the wall can be.

 

the quote I have heard from Stef certainly rings true in my experience - "you cannot reason someone out of something they were no reasoned into"

 

I know a lot of religious people, and I don't know a single one who was not raised by an abusive/manipulative/controlling parental figure - I imagine that this makes it much more normal to accept the kind of violence and manipulation expressed in the religious stories like the one being discussed here.  and if it ain't a god, then the state will take its place... 

[Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"]

OK, so you are on the other side of the great schism, it still does not change the first few centuries debate over the old testament, must studies took me outside of religious readings of history.  the eastern church was one with the church of Rome until the schism.  but you are right, it is not really pertinent to the discussion, just a point of interest for me.

 

I did not insert the 'what the frack' dialogue to prove anything.  It was simply to emphasize the moral incongruity of the situation.  

 

I no where demanded that god remove the serpent, I stated that he put him there.  you have misrepresented my argument and did not answer my question about whether the fallen ones were banished to earth and given dominion over it.  Is that not scripturally accurate, even in the eastern teachings?  If it is, then you have your coercion.  It does not matter that Adam and Eve were happy and carefree in the garden before the temptation, without duress as you say, the game was rigged.  

 

as you have pointed out repeatedly, God says:  "don't do this or else..."  what is the point of this test?  - this is not freedom, it is coercion.  it is plain.  he made the game, he sets the rules, he enacts the punishment.  how does that not add up for you?  

[Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"]

Well, alexa, I just stated that early christians believed a very different story than the one you were taught and you didn't even mention it or show any curiosity.  I will play along for a little while longer cuz I am just curious to see how long you will keep preaching the same story without loosing a beat.  that is the kind of stuff will get you plenty of down votes.  

 

I think it is OK to be a christian if that works for you, but isn't knowing as much as you can about the origins of your belief system a valid pursuit in that regard?  I wanted to be a good christian so I did a lot of research.  did you know that the biggest dispute in the early church in the first 2 centuries was about whether or not to include the old testament in the scriptures - followers of Jesus did not think that it belonged and that it told the story of a different god than the one Jesus spoke of.  they held to their beliefs for centuries until the church of Rome finally killed off the last of them (the Cathars) in the 12th century after centuries of crusades.  who do you think the Roman church was labeling heretics?  do you know about the changes Constantine and Justinian made to the faith?  do you know who was handling Luther and King James who gave us the modern version of the christian belief system?  does that peak your interest or give you pause at all?  

 

I don't care about your definition of duress, it is irrelevant to the argument that has been made against your position.  I will add some dialogue to your conversation with god below:

 

Thanks - I am. It's been a while since I last had a chance to debate these things with people. I'm just a tad bit worried about the fact that I'm getting "downvoted" on every second post =) I hope this doesn't result in me getting automated ban, or something =)

I don't think the comparison with Hell's Angels is valid. Nothing in the Genesis 3 story suggests that humans were under any kind of duress or coercion or environmental stress. There was a kind of a philosophical dispute, pure and simple; perhaps, the first one in the world =)

 

is it not clear in the scriptures that the 'fallen ones' were banished to earth and that they rule over the world?  so don't call it 'duress', but it is way messed up and sadistic, just like sending the hell's angels to live with your kids - the analogy fits.  saying that there was no 'duress' is evading the issue.  

1) God: Don't eat that Fruit, you'll die.

Adam:  Why the Frack did you put it here then? Is this some sort of messed up obedience test?

2) Satan: Is that right that you shouldn't eat anything?

Adam:  what the frack is he doing here?
3) Eve: No, only the Fruit is off limits, 'cause we'll die.
4) Satan: Oh no, you won't die, God lied. You'll be awesome.

Eve:  who sent you here?  why are we having this debate?  
5) Eve: Hm, I see. And the fruit is attractive. *munch-munch*
6) God: Adam, what's up? Did you eat the Fruit which I told you to not eat?

Adam:  that surprises you?  what the frack is wrong with you?  are you a moron?  

7) Adam: Uh... it's this woman - that you gave me - she did it!
8) God: Eve??

Adam:  why do you keep asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to?  
9) Uh... that serpent lied to me, so I.. yeah.

Eve:  why did you let him anywhere near us?  you know we are no match for him in any way.  are you fracking stupid and sadistic?  
10) God: OK, plan B. Banishment for you two, lest you ruin the whole experiment. See you later.

Eve:  Really?  that is your best response to this mess you created?  You really are messed up... 

So, that's the conflict

1) A warning is given, and, very important bit - no seat belts. They're warned about the consequences, and need to exercise their freedom. I love the purity of the situation.
2) A first sales pitch - is it true that he said "For all X, do not eat X" (the universal quantifier)
3) No, the condition is weaker - "There exist an x in X, such that we should not eat x, or face bad consequences"
4) A second sales pitch - "God lied, there will be no bad consequences, there will be good ones".
5)Majoritarian democracy in action!
Notice how God got outnumbered 2 to 1 - God said 'nay', Satan said 'aye', and Eve said 'aye'. Then immediately after, Adam denied responsibility, shifting it to Eve; Eve, likewise, denied responsibility, shifting it on a Serpent. Freedom's tough, right? Easier to appoint someone else to bear the burden of responsibility, don't we see that around us today?

Finally, in this conversation, other participants deny Adam's and Eve's responsibility, shifting it on God.

 

In the creation story as it is taught Adam and Eve are no more responsible for this mess than children are for the circumstances created for them by their parents.  this has been pointed out already.  

 

The only way for God to prevent the Fall would be to limit human freedom in some way; either by lobotomizing humans, stripping them of free will, or constructing a barrier around the Tree. Neither is acceptable to Him, exactly because the very purpose of the experiment was for humans to exercise their free will.
So now we're in "plan B" - fighting through the consequences.

 

the only way, huh?  wow, I'm not even god and I can think of a dozen ways off the top of my head to handle this better.  you presume much to imagine what god is not capable of.  

to be clear alexa, I do not buy into any of this religious dogma I am only pointing out, like others have, that to be taken seriously it at least has to be morally and logically consistent.  

[Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"]

wow, I haven't been involved in this kind of debate for a long time, but I remember that same kind of unique logic that bends to fit these kinds of moral inconsistencies that are the core of the religious belief system:

 

god wants to be in control and be worshiped and obeyed, like any tyrant slave master.  His most loved and powerful angel decides he wants to make his own choices in defiance of god's wishes so there is a war in heaven.  Of course, a violent altercation, because that is the best idea god could come up with to the resolve the dispute...  

 

well, where does lucifer his fallen ones get banished to?  earth, where god has created a paradise for his most beloved creation... cuz that's the best idea he could come up with... 

 

its like making your kids live with the hell's angels gang and then getting pissed cuz they make poor choices.  

 

I spent years studying the history of religion, esp christianity - I was raised RC and had a few questions.  the ironic thing that christians do not even realize is that the 'modern' christrian doctrine is nothing like what early christians believed.  

 

good for you alexa for taking a run at these guys though, hope you're having fun.  

[Voting?]

 

 

I've not ignored the moral consideration altogether, that's a blatant lie. in fact I've explained several times that we're in agreement with the initiation of force being immoral as an ideology, where we disagree is how to arrive at that goal and the practical concerns that has in an imperfect world.

 

I've provided examples of libertarian parties efforts vs slightly less libertarian parties and the difference is night and day, almost no one is supporting maximum liberty, where as we have actual change by instead voting in a compromise, people are happier to make smaller changes and if the change is beneficial then there's a good chance they'll continue to make smaller changes in future which add up to a big change they'd not necessarily be willing to jump to straight away.

 

 

And i've stated several times (which I think you've also ignored) that if anyone does have a way of stopping the immoral use of force immediately when it comes to the state, I'm all ears and will gladly help.

 

 

You would only be "tolerating" a less immoral system if the option of a perfect one existed, which I've said over and over again that I'd happily take if it was an option - asked you several times for how to achieve this, and it's gone ignored. My statement for "tolerating" immorality is, and always has been, a conditional statement based on our ability to get to a perfect morality.

 

To think otherwise is to classify all shades of immorality as equal and to ignore the very real practical benefit in reducing immorality in instances where you cannot remove it all together.

 

 

 

 

So, the only argument you are willing to accept must provide an immediate solution to the initiation of force?  Who said they had, or would, or could provide such a thing?  You must have either ignored or not understand dsayers response to that question that you claim he has evaded.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your reasoning but are you able to show any evidence that the political process has ever been able to achieve what you claim - the gradual reduction of violence.  Have you tested your thesis on a smaller scale?  

 

Markus started a thread expressing the exact same concern as you - the "lets be realistic and practical and do it gradually" argument.  You might find some more ideas over there to help you sort this out.  

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39919-an-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-minarchism/

Frosty.  So, the only argument you are willing to accept must provide an immediate solution to the initiation of force?  Who said they had, or would, or could provide such a thing?  You must have either ignored or not understand dsayers response to that question that you claim he has evaded.  

 

 

 

 

 

So your argument is that if I (one person) cannot provide an answer for how to achieve the goal of peace without using violence, then your belief in using violence to curtail violence must be valid?

 

You end rape by not raping, by not condoning rape, by not participating in rape, by not supporting others who rape, by stopping rape, by helping others to understand that rape isn't moral if you call it by a different name, etc etc. The anxiety we experience in not being able to effect change on a scale much larger than ourselves overnight isn't valid justification for allowing for less rape in the meantime.

 

The State is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare it down at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

 

 

I understand your reasoning but are you able to show any evidence that the political process has ever been able to achieve what you claim - the gradual reduction of violence.  Have you tested your thesis on a smaller scale?  

 

 

Markus started a thread expressing the exact same concern as you - the "lets be realistic and practical and do it gradually" argument.  You might find some more ideas over there to help you sort this out.  

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39919-an-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-minarchism/

[Can government own land? Devil's advocate]

Yes, but what about the "water under the bridge" argument, that the crime dissolves over time? 

huh?, did you read the rest of his post?  

[Can government own land? Devil's advocate]

I am pretty new to these arguments myself but I think that a person has rights, and a 'group' is just a bunch of people.  looks like you need to be clear about your definition of government.  

[how do you start the conversation?]

thanks Pepin, that is good stuff. 

[how do you start the conversation?]

I would like to know how you initiate the freedom/anarchy/volunteerism/NAP discussion with the statists in your life.  How do you bring it up?  When?  Why?  In what context?  For what purpose?  

 

how has it gone in general, what were some of the outcomes?  

 

what advise would you give based on your experiences?

 

I have had the debate with one friend and it went OK, he did have a remarkably emotional reaction to a rational discussion of the ethics involved and he had trouble getting past the 'but how?"  "what about the roads?" stuff.  I like to stay focused on the ethical, 'against me' side of it like Larken Rose advocates, and Stef too.  

 

thanks for your input

 

[No Punishment...]

Paraphrasing from memory but I believe Stefan said this about his daughter, "I would never want my daughter to live in a world where she is shielded from the consequences of her actions." The point is learning to take responsibility for ones actions. However taking responsibility is different from punishment, through  negotiation one can avoid that form of discipline. Negotiate the rules together, and the consequences of violating those rules. The relationship must be treated as voluntary and equal so the same rules apply universally.

thanks Culain, that is a good perspective.  Yes the difference between taking responsibility for ones actions and punishment is key

 

Is your question, "Why is it wrong to punish children but not adults?"

 

 

My question was simply the last sentence of my post, forgot to put a '?' at the end of it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I own myself, therefore my time and the effects of my actions, therefore my car, etc. There is no positive obligation for me to give of these things to anybody else. I don't agree that the withholding of these things could be classified as passive aggressive. If I avoid a statist for example, I'm not trying to punish them, but rather just trying to protect myself. It would be different if I created a positive obligation to somebody, say by consenting to them borrowing my car.

 

 

 

 

I was thinking more of intimate relationships, like a couple for example, where one might withhold attention, avoid, etc when they feel offended for some reason.  That is a form of 'punishment' not unlike what happens to children with their parents with 'time outs', 'got to your room', 'no play time', and the like.  

 

this is different from avoiding someone to protect your well-being.  Does that fit?

 

 

 

Likewise, parents create an enormous positive obligation to the child when they have the child. This includes modeling the capacity for reason and negotiation. It's important that the parent understands that anything they view as punishable is in fact a failure on the part of the parents. One they should confess to their child and have a dialogue about it. This addresses the actual issue as well as models things like it's okay to fail, how to make amends, etc.

 

I hope this is helpful. 

excellent, this is helpful as well.  thanks dsayers.  

[No Punishment...]

I heard Stef mention that he and his wife had decided that they would not punish their daughter - no negative consequences.  I would like to learn more about this.

 

I agree that hitting children with negative consequences like time outs and withholding attention etc is abusive.  Moreover, I understand that all this carries over into our adult lives.  When he mentioned the no punishment thing it struck me that we do that in our adult relationships instead of communicating, negotiating, etc...  we withhold love and affection, use avoidance and other passive aggressive behavior to 'punish' those close to us for transgressions.  

 

I think this is so important.  We are so programmed to think that children need to be controlled and then somehow reprimanded for 'wrong' behavior.  

 

What can you folks tell me about your understanding and experiences around this.  

[Can UPB be made clearer and more concise?]

I found it a tough go as well.  I would like to see a simple, direct, layman's version and those who want more detailed arguments can go from there.  It seems to me that universal ethical propositions are intuitively accepted by the majority (NAP stuff) in everyday life to lay them out there in an easy to grasp, concise way should be simple enough.  Or maybe I'm just too simple and don't get it.  

[Voting?]

DFpercush, you seem to asking "Is voting or supporting LP candidates a legitimate and effective way to minimize state power and grouth"  Is this correct?  

 

I think it comes down to accepting that it is not a practical issue, it is a moral one and all the the pertinent responses to your discussions about the Libertarian agenda reflect this.  If you cannot accept the validity of the moral imperative then I think we are done here.  

 

"The growth of state power was thwarted, at least for a little while," ...  

 

I said 'no' to your response about the effectiveness of the electoral process because it was already clear in your response about the the confederate states temporary achievement - it did not work - that is like getting a temporary cure for the spread of cancer.  I know of no historical examples that support your position.  It does not make sense to pursue a strategy that has so much evidence showing its ineffectiveness.  Like most of us you live your own life in a voluntary cooperative manner, the evidence for the effectiveness of a anarchist voluntary society is all around you.  As is the evidence that the use of force to deal with social issues is immoral.  2+2=4.  

 

BTW, speaking of 2+2, I just noticed your avatar and your handle (DFpercush) and it occurred to me that you must be a drummer.  I am a musician and I just started a new band with the best drummer in town, and an awesome percussionist (congas, bongos, etc.) we are having a blast.  Don't make me throw a 'Libertarian Drummer' joke at you!  

[Voting?]

"Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process?"

 

Third parties almost never win, so there's not much data either way about that. As far as electoral process in general, maybe the secession of the confederacy from the u.s.? But they lost the war, so they weren't able to carry their own policies very long. Still, look what Lincoln did to the federal gov't, that's what they didn't want any part of and voted to get out of it. Anyway, about a 3rd party president, were we to perform such an experiment, it would bring to light more clearly to what extent the President is a hood ornament, or if the office has the capacity to put the brakes on. I think a lot could be done, but isn't because of the collusion involved in party politics. If the LP gained a significant number of seats they would probably become corrupt as well. It's possible that by then there would be a new party that would be even more minimalist.

 

OK, so the answer is no.  Also, you must agree with my point that the Libertarian movement, for all its hard work and money spent has been ineffective to say the least - gov has grown exponentially in recent decades  - since you said nothing to refute it.

 

I'd like to address this phrase "show your support for the system". No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy, monarchy, or anarchy. If the candidate proposes significantly changing the system, I argue that it shows exactly the opposite - my dissatisfaction with the system. The same applies to "You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression."

 

Ball's in your court gentlemen.

I think the ball is still in your court.  You are still just stating your opinions and not addressing the questions raised here.  

 

Significantly change what system?  I don't understand what you are talking about.  If a politician representing the government promises to stop stealing and initiating force, then it wouldn't be the government anymore.  Anything else is just voting for a nicer master or less stealing.  No matter the size of the state, every law is a death threat.  

[Voting?]

I suppose my pendulum argument was one from utility and not morality. This thing about a hit man though, let me make sure I understand. The day to day operations of a state would continue even under libertarian leadership, including all the coercive practices of a central legal system and so on, and so that makes the election of any leader of this system immoral? Cause I don't see how that follows. If that's not what you're saying let me know, but by choosing the hood ornament I'm responsible for the design of the engine? The amount of coercion would be measurably reduced by libertarian policies, to the best of our knowledge. Doesn't that factor in to the morality? If this were a situation where a government was being founded over a new untouched land, things would be different, because the level of coercion could only go up. But if I have any amount of control over the amount of wrong done in the world, is it not my responsibility to minimize it?

Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process? 

 

the 'divine right of kings' has been the bane of human civilization for thousands of years.  It is a myth we have all been brainwashed to believe is normal and necessary.  We used to hope and pray for kinder kings and masters.  When the oligarchs started getting their heads chopped off they decided it would be better to give us the illusion of control and choice as to who gets to sit on the throne.  Let them vote.  

 

I doesn't matter who you get to sit on the throne - there is no throne.  

 

How is choosing your 'hood ornament' going to help reduce the state?  Libertarian politics has been around for decades  - millions have been spent, many have written and given speeches - and in that time the state has grown exponentially.  Empirically, it has not been an effective tool for convincing people to minimize state power.  If you are interested in minimizing coercion and unethical practices in the world I think it would be more productive to help educate a couple of people on peaceful parenting and the violence of the state than to show your support for the system that is the greatest source of violence in the known universe.