lorry

OK, new podcast from those who shall not be named. So..... 1. The most generalised conception of a force is a generalised action producing a generalised displacement in some co-ordinate system. Displacement, being vector quantity, requires a magnitude and a direction. A direction requires a basis. That a force is positive is that a force results in a positive displacement. Positive? Positive defined by the basis. That a force is negative is that a force results in a displacement. Negative? Negative defined by the basis. 2. In the context of ethics, a positive displacement is a good, a negative displacement is a bad. 3. The libertarian has no basis of good and bad, ethical and unethical, because they have no standard of value. 4. Objectivism does have a standard of value. 5. Objectivism defines the concept of the standard of value. 6. From the standard of value, Objecivism can define the initiation of physical force as the negation of said standard. 7. The problem is Objectivism defines man as a rational animal.... 8. Explicitly. 9. So, the initiation of physical force is the negation of man's mind [6] but the use of mans mind if optional [7] [8]. Therefore, the initiation of physical force is only the negation of man's mind if man has chosen to use his mind. As it is the negation of man's mind [6], which is the good [5], it can only be that it is the initiation of physical force against a man who acting rationally is immoral. For example, man, acting rationally, is acting to achieve the good and thus the initiation of physical force must be so as to force said man away from the good, which is logically, always, the bad. 10. Reviewing my examples, i.e., use force to stop a suicide, I am giving examples of initiating the use of again the irrational, and we know they are irrational because acting contrary to the good, man's life. Thoughts: If it is that the initiation of force is immoral because it negates the fact of a man's mind, it must be that it is only immoral to initiate the use of physical force against a man acting rationally, a man using his mind. If it is that the initiation of force is immoral against the rational AND the irrational, the it is that physical force is the negation of the capacity, the potential, of the mind, not of the mind. If this is true, then abortion must be immoral, objectivly, on the same grounds, i.e., that the fetus irreducible [can not be separated into sperm and egg] and has the capacity, the potential, of the mind (note Rand held that abortion is NOT unethical).

Well, yeah I'm not answering the question. I know your response to the answer and I reject it, so...... why? I'm fairly sure I figured out the problem, effort post incoming!

Stealing a knife from someone who is going use said knife to slice their wrists open and kill themselves. Now you try.

1. Cutting someone open to save their life. This is good. 2. Cutting someone open to murder them. This is bad. If I take away the ends from 1 and 2 you have: A. Cutting someone open to... B. Cutting someone open to... Which one, A or B, is the immoral act? And why?

Force to bring about a good end is not good. Force to bring about a bad end is bad. All ends are good or bad (yeah, I know I'm skipping indifference). That which is not good is bad. So all force is bad. I'm basically just throwing out examples to provoke the re conception of the definitions, as, I think, the definitions used have no basis in reality (floating abstractions). Here is a new one. Initiating force to stop a girl from killing herself, is, by your definition, always immoral. I dunno.....

And for all you Libertarians! That the state holds the legal monopoly on the initiation of force does not imply that every action takes is the initiation of force. I'm going to go to McDonalds later, and they hold a legal monopoly on Big Macs, but I'm going to buy some fries. WTF JUST HAPPENED?!

No need, you define all force as bad, as immoral. Here is where I am. The most generalised conception of a force is a generalised action producing a generalised displacement in some co-ordinate system. Displacement, being vector quantity, requires a magnitude and a direction. A direction requires a basis. That a force is positive is that a force results in a positive displacement. Positive? Positive defined by the basis. That a force is negative is that a force results in a displacement. Negative? Negative defined by the basis. I absolutely reject the definition that the initiation of force is immoral, because that force was initiated says nothing about the resulting displacement (initiated? In what direction?). I absolutely reject the definition that force is only negative, resulting in a negative displacement (bad or immoral in a ethical context), because it implies the non existence of the positive, and the non existence of the positive implies the non existence of the negative (good and bad, moral and immoral don't exist).

I consent to abort a child 1 day away from term. Not a problem, consent! I consent for you to set my dog on fire. Not a problem, consent! A child consents to transgender surgery. Not a problem, consent! Can a child not give consent, why not? Who can then? The parents? OK, I consent for you to preform a sex change on my child. Not a problem, consent! I consent for you to gas me with Zyklon B, like I'm some sort of typhus spreading louse. Not a problem, consent! I consent for you to poz my neg hole, to infect me with HIV. Not a problem, consent! I consent for you to bleach my eyes, because I identify as a blind man. Not a problem, consent! Your definition is a (attempt at a) legal one, it is the (attempt at the) necessary elements for a court of law, and you know this, so what are you doing trying to pass it off as a definition for the immorality of theft? And, even by that standard, it is a non-definition. Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property, belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving a person of said property. No mention of consent. When does a theft begin? When is a property appropriated? Section 1 (3) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. When one assumes the rights to the property, not when one takes the property, because the assumption of ownership precedes the taking. You steal a thing when you decide to steal it, not when you stick it in your pocket. Sticking it in your pocket is how one would prove the theft, consent is how one would prove preference.

I wasn't clear enough. UPB gives A standard of value, it doesn't solve the problem of THE standard of value. By THE standard of value I mean the standard by which any preference is measured. Take two ends and ask, what is it in these two ends which is commensurate with one another and so establishes the standard by which they are measured? What are the dimensions of value? UPB doesn't solve this problem. Like, UPB is a function, returning a Boolean value, to an argument in the form of a statement about what is universally preferable. So it assumes preferences, it doesn't prove preferences, but by assuming preferences it proves universal preferences. If preferences exist then universal preferences exist. If ethics exists, UPB is a valid framework of evaluating ethical propositions. By what standard do we measure preferences? UPB doesn't solve that problem. What I do not accept in your definition is that it is not true. Say we take consent as the definition of theft so that violation of consent is theft. What does it mean if I expressly do not consent to give you something and then, without expressly consenting to give you said thing, I give it to you? I do not consent to give you $10. I give you $10. WTF just happened? I just stole from myself! Do I have an obligation to make reparations to myself? How would this go down in a court, I'm the defendant and the complainant. (bear in mind, UPB states that I can't steal from myself. So consent as the basis of theft implies UPB is invalid) Your definition obviously reduces to something else, because consent obviously reduces to something else (the answer to above is that I changed my mind!). So why isn't the basis of your definition that which your definition reduces to? What do you have to reject so as to reduce your definition? I think it is the subjective theory of value, which means we have a problem of THE standard of value.

That man is the only being that is capable of acting contrary to the values upon which his life is dependant, is proof of what you might call his conscious. Inanimate objects to do not have values. Other forms of life have values but can not act contrary to them.

My point is this. Questions of evaluation presuppose values which presuppose a standard of value. In the absence of a standard of value there is no rational basis for evaluation. UPB has not solved the problem of the standard of value. UPB assumes the existence of values, and then evaluates value statements for logical contradictions. The Libertarian NAP is not built upon a standard of value, it is a floating abstraction, so the Libertarian NAP can not be used for evaluation. Anyone seeking to prove taxation is theft is seeking evaluation in the absence of a standard by which to evaluate, it can not be done. So that taxation is theft is just an assertion, it is being offered without proof, and anything offered without proof can be rejected without proof.

Nah. If Taylor Swift pinches my ass, she has initiated force, but the initiation of force in this context is definitely not immoral btw. You might ask yourself why Stefan, who has stated that taxation IS theft, has never used his ethical system, UPB, to prove taxation is theft.

Don't think so. You see, a right guaranties something to everyone in society but it also obligates everyone in society to uphold that guarantied. So "violating" a right, say, the right to private property, isn't necessarily a "violation" of that right, it might also be the enforcement, or fulfilment, of your obligation to some other member of society to uphold their rights.

The Libertarian is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a sophist, pragmatist, mystic, communist, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But tell him to define his standard of value and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.” -- Ayn Rand.

To give consent is to give permission. So, to give consent is to give consent. The rest is the conclusion if you take consent as divorced from preference. Say you do not consent to X. Why? Why do you not consent X? Because you don't want X to happen, because you would prefer X not happen. If consent isn't the communication of what you want to happen then it doesn't have any meaning, it communicates, literally, nothing. So then what does it mean to violate consent? Nothing. So what does it mean to be immoral? Nothing. Conversely, what does it mean to be moral? Nothing. So ethics exists? Nope. But choice requires values, requires ethics? Yep. So there must not be any choices. And what is it called when there is no choice? And I am aware that consent is reducible, it is reducible to preference. I'm taking what you write at face value.

I totally agree, provided that value, and thus benefit, is objective. Or, if you prefer, you can say that if you reject the subjective theory of value.

Wants don't exist, consent is the irreducible primary of human action, pay attention please.

No, my dude. This might help. Force is a means to an end, but means are valued for the ends they bring, so the ends determine the value of the means. Force isn't bad, force to bring about a bad end is bad. Force isn't good, force to bring about a good end is good. So you can't say "X is force, therefore it is bad" you have to show that "the end achieved by X is bad therefore X is bad". Also, you've dropped the second part of taxation, the provision of some benefit, can't do that either.

Defining something with its synonym is a tautology. Your concept of consent has no basis in reality because it has no reference to man's volitional will. You have made it purposeful action without purpose, choosing without choice. Welcome to determinism.

Gotta ground it all in reality, bro.

I'm trying to say that consent after the fact does not necessarily imply the non existence of a preference before the fact. Like, you can know the answer to a question before you tell me the answer to a question. And, if you don't tell me the answer to a question, it doesn't necessarily imply you don't know the answer. I'm saying they might consent after the fact but prefer it before that fact, and if they prefer it before the fact, there is no force and no immorality.

Because consent is the communication of preference, and a preference can exist before the fact and be communicated after the fact. Force is force against ones will, ones preferences. So the fact that I consent after the fact doesn't imply it isn't preferable before the fact. And if it is preferable before the fact, how can the force be against ones will, against ones preferences?

Nice tautology. The tyrant freely gives explicit permission to rape and murder everyone under his control! Violation of this consent is immoral!

Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity. Force is force against ones will. If you have sex against your preferences, if the sex is unwanted, unwilled, that is what implies force. All over this thread the context of force is being dropped, it can't be.

Literally the opposite of what I wrote, my dude. Said it, like, 20 times now., in at about 4 difference ways, preference precedes consent. Consent, in the absence of preference, is just noise, it has no information content [5th way]. What information does consent communicate?