law is not an opinion with a gun

[Phillip Brix]

there are certain laws that the goevernment enforces that i do not consider an opinion with a gun.heres just a small list.

anti murder is not an opinion with a gun.

anti theft is not an opinion with a gun.

anti rape is not an opinion with a gun.

anti assualt is not an opinion with a gun.

anti pullution is not an opinion with a gun.

now we may say these laws are enforced with a gun. but no sane person is pro these things. therefore they are not opinions. they are matters of civil society. now we can debate wether the government does a good job or not enforcing these laws, i would personally say not since most offenders when caught face either such signifcant negitive consequences that they have to plead down, so justice isn't really despenced of fairly. but that doesn't change the fact that certain laws are not opinions. they are not really up for debate. we can debate the severty of the punishment, but not the severity of the crime.

so please, in all good conscience stop saying law is an opinion with a gun.

 

[prolix]

Yea, so you have outlined the few instances where the current statist "law" is in line with NAP and a free society. That happens. The state parallels a free society in many ways. The point is where they differ. Where they differ is also significant. So you listed 5 parallels. But you can not say that invalidates the 100000's of instances where state power via "law" is just an opinion with a gun. You have listed the few instances where almost any society would hold these "anti-xyz" universals. UPB is a free book and is a good outline on why/how that is an objective reality. But the gross majority of "laws" are just opinions of a gun. So you highlight that how the state deals with these thing is also not ideal. Well, that invalidates your premise also. In a free society someone proven guilty of these crimes you list will be dealt with without an "opinion with a gun". Meaning that "anti murder is not an opinion with a gun" yes. But how you deal with a murderer is a matter of opinion with a gun in the current statist system.

 

So it seems a little nit-picky to me. I mean, if I say "Chinese people are short", then you say "what about this one tall Chinese guy", you have not invalidated the generality I am highlighting. You are just saying that I should have stressed the fact that it is a generality. That is nit-picky. Same thing here. Stefan wrote a book called UPB that outlines the universality of these situations you bring up. So this isn't exactly new thought on the topic.

 

​Also it reminds me of the "state doesn't provide xyz, then xyz will not get done" logical fail scenario. Yes, the state is on board with certain aspects of UPB and NAP, but this is in no way able to validate the immoral foundation of the state or the massive majority of the state functions that are in face "an opinion with a gun". So, I really feel the need to be harsh on you about this given your last sentence is a little insulting and reads like a bitchy snark comment I would expect from mainstream news editorial...

[J. D. Stembal]

The first four are covered by the NAP.

 

Anti-pollution is an aesthetic preference not shared by everyone. Some people choose to spend less on an apartment and live right next to a factory (noise and exhaust pollution). Some people choose to live next to a major highway to save on rent or property values if they find the highway noise acceptable.

 

Aside from the big four, laws are aesthetic preferences (opinions) backed by the violence of the state. Saying that something is not up for debate isn't a very compelling argument, by the way.

[Pepin]

Imagine that there is someone who does not believe in a god. Can we assume that they believe this because they rationally weighed the arguments for and or against? Not at all, especially since many people become atheists for very dumb reasons. Not believing in a god is only an opinion until supported by sufficient reason and evidence.

 

If this person were to force others to convert to atheism with the threat of force, though they are technically correct, can it not be said that they are wielding and opinion with a gun?

 

Someone who claims that they are pro-science without understanding the scientific method is simply stating an opinion. They believe science is good not because they are judging the goodness of science, but they are just stating a conclusion that they agree with.

 

If this person were to force other to agree with scientific conclusions, could this not be said to be an opinion with a gun?

 

Why an individual would state a conclusion as fact when they have little to no ability to make an argument for the conclusion has many explanations, ranging from going with the crowd, to memetic replication. Whatever the reason, what is important is that though there may be justification on the state's part, there is no real valid ethical theory which supports it all.

 

Even if justification can be made by some individuals, those who enforce the law have little to no understanding of their actions. They are in the same position as people who were given orders by "god" in the past. Do they enforce the law because the authority figure says the law is good, or do they enforce the law because they have a rational understanding of their actions?

 

I understand that you are likely very intelligent and could provide great ethical arguments as to why murder and rape is wrong, but most people are rather unable to form any sort of coherent argument. It isn't that they won't have a list of reasons, but rather that the reasoning does not hold up to any philosophical scrutiny. Opinions and weak arguments are completely fine in most instances, but when it comes to the use of force, the.level of rigor is very high.

 

Ultimately, the issue is not even that some laws are correct but not understood, it is rather that the laws do not apply to those in the government.

 

Do not murder? Wars, police brutality, economic policy, and so on murders millions upon millions of people every year.

 

Do not steal? Governments are funded through the theft of its citizens money. Worse, money is stolen from those not even born?

 

Do not rape? Government law throws people in rape cells for drug crime. The military records of rape and sexual misconduct is also very bad.

 

Do not pollute? Governments are the biggest source of pollution, especially in regard to wartime activity. It is also really difficult to convey the waste of energy that so many government policies create, such as the interstate highway program artificially lowering the price of living away from cities, or farm subsides keeping the meat industry in full health.

 

I hope that all makes sense and at least helps in your understanding of why people here tend to say that. If you have any counter arguments I'd be happy to hear them, I posted a lot so you can choose to be picky as opposed to refuting every point.

[GasCap]

there are certain laws that the goevernment enforces that i do not consider an opinion with a gun.heres just a small list.

anti murder is not an opinion with a gun.

anti theft is not an opinion with a gun.

anti rape is not an opinion with a gun.

anti assualt is not an opinion with a gun.

anti pullution is not an opinion with a gun.

now we may say these laws are enforced with a gun. but no sane person is pro these things. therefore they are not opinions. they are matters of civil society. now we can debate wether the government does a good job or not enforcing these laws, i would personally say not since most offenders when caught face either such signifcant negitive consequences that they have to plead down, so justice isn't really despenced of fairly. but that doesn't change the fact that certain laws are not opinions. they are not really up for debate. we can debate the severty of the punishment, but not the severity of the crime.

so please, in all good conscience stop saying law is an opinion with a gun.

 

I think Gov = Tax = theft.

 

is it right to steal from others to enforce a law whether good or bad?

[autowagon]

there are laws you do NOT consider opinions with a gun>
now, cross out every ANTI- followed by a NOT because they are mutually exclusive and what do you get?

opinions with guns.

[J-William]

 

hey, this thread is based on an opinion without an argument, Hooray!

[Kevin Beal]

I know a tall chinese man, so please stop saying that chinese men are shorter and the dutch!

[Phillip Brix]

 

Imagine that there is someone who does not believe in a god. Can we assume that they believe this because they rationally weighed the arguments for and or against? Not at all, especially since many people become atheists for very dumb reasons. Not believing in a god is only an opinion until supported by sufficient reason and evidence.

 

If this person were to force others to convert to atheism with the threat of force, though they are technically correct, can it not be said that they are wielding and opinion with a gun?

forcing people to convert to a religous or non religious perspective is hardly the same as maintaining order by theatening acts of violence against angainst anyone who is violent or destructive.

 

Someone who claims that they are pro-science without understanding the scientific method is simply stating an opinion. They believe science is good not because they are judging the goodness of science, but they are just stating a conclusion that they agree with.

 

If this person were to force other to agree with scientific conclusions, could this not be said to be an opinion with a gun?

okay let's say instead it was a scientist well versed in the scientific method and how it should be applied. would you agree with him forcing everyone to agree with the scientific method?

 

Why an individual would state a conclusion as fact when they have little to no ability to make an argument for the conclusion has many explanations, ranging from going with the crowd, to memetic replication. Whatever the reason, what is important is that though there may be justification on the state's part, there is no real valid ethical theory which supports it all.

huh? you honestly believe there's no valid ethical thoery that's against murder? then why are you against the state? or do you mean there's no valid ethical theory wich supports the state? well sure there is. do you agree people can accosiate and form contacts? do you agree that the formation of the us government was orginally voluntary and based off contract law?

 

Even if justification can be made by some individuals, those who enforce the law have little to no understanding of their actions. They are in the same position as people who were given orders by "god" in the past. Do they enforce the law because the authority figure says the law is good, or do they enforce the law because they have a rational understanding of their actions?

do you agree that sometimes police keep murders off the street? do you agree most police think it's a good idea to do this? do you agree that to deny paying for that service is a form of theft? do you agree theft should be punishable by imprisonment?

 

Ultimately, the issue is not even that some laws are correct but not understood, it is rather that the laws do not apply to those in the government.

 

Do not murder? Wars, police brutality, economic policy, and so on murders millions upon millions of people every year.

police are often called up to face charges againt brutality, wars have been around since the dawn of time and most politictians have fought in one so they know that its like, ecomonic policy is set by the federal reserve which is a privately owned oganization.

 

Do not steal? Governments are funded through the theft of its citizens money. Worse, money is stolen from those not even born?

agian do you agree that the government provides serivices that no private company currently is? do you agree that not paying for these services is a form of theft?

 

 

Do not rape? Government law throws people in rape cells for drug crime. The military records of rape and sexual misconduct is also very bad.

this speaks more to the character of people than to the character of government wouldn't you agree?

 

Do not pollute? Governments are the biggest source of pollution, especially in regard to wartime activity. It is also really difficult to convey the waste of energy that so many government policies create, such as the interstate highway program artificially lowering the price of living away from cities, or farm subsides keeping the meat industry in full health.

okay, good point, but that doesn't make pollution a good thing, and most laws agaisnt pollution are there for a reason, even if poorly enforced.

 

 

I know a tall chinese man, so please stop saying that chinese men are shorter and the dutch!

either all chinese men are shorter than the ducth or some are and some aren't.

 

if a law doesn't quilify as an opinion with a gun, then means you can't make the general statement about all laws, because then it wouldn't be correct.

[Kevin Beal]

either all chinese men are shorter than the ducth or some are and some aren't.

 

if a law doesn't quilify as an opinion with a gun, then means you can't make the general statement about all laws, because then it wouldn't be correct.

I don't think you understand what a generalization is.

[dsayers]

there are certain laws that the goevernment enforces that i do not consider an opinion with a gun.heres just a small list.

anti murder is not an opinion with a gun.

anti theft is not an opinion with a gun.

anti rape is not an opinion with a gun.

anti assualt is not an opinion with a gun.

anti pullution is not an opinion with a gun.

now we may say these laws are enforced with a gun. but no sane person is pro these things.

 

This is like saying that a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard isn't always guessing because sometimes they'll hit a 4 in response to the question of 2+2=?.

 

What does sane people being for something have to do with anything? If people recognize that theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights, then you don't need to point guns at people to make it so.

 

It's unclear what your intent was with the creation of this thread. It seems to me like you're saying we should abide some aggression because some of that aggression calls other aggression bad. Am I close? Do you see the absurdity when expressed in those terms?

[square4]

do you agree that sometimes police keep murders off the street? do you agree most police think it's a good idea to do this? do you agree that to deny paying for that service is a form of theft? do you agree theft should be punishable by imprisonment?

 

Try to apply principles consistently. If a random security business decides to patrol your street, do they then have the right to extract a payment from you for this "service"? Of course not, because you have never agreed to purchase the service. The same applies to governments. Also, please realize that imprisonment of the innocent is a serious crime, that destroys people's normal life. In addition, prison guards further mistreat the people they have abducted, for example by doing strip-searches, which is similar to rape/molestation, because it is involuntary. This often happens with official approval, so then it fully reflects on the government as an institution. Imagine a private agency would do the same.

 

agian do you agree that the government provides serivices that no private company currently is?

 

If it is indeed true that no private company provides it, it is good to ask the question: Why is that? Is it because of the threat of fines or imprisonment? Or because it is difficult to compete against agencies that have a guaranteed theft-based income? Governments use an unjust business model. I would recommend reading some more libertarian literature about anarchy, and a new world of understanding might open.

[Phillip Brix]

 

This is like saying that a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard isn't always guessing because sometimes they'll hit a 4 in response to the question of 2+2=?.

government aren't created at random. they are formed by people who benifit from them. sometimes for good sometime for ill. but most govenrments have to maintian order in order to be successful. if they didn't do that they would die out.

 

What does sane people being for something have to do with anything? If people recognize that theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights, then you don't need to point guns at people to make it so.

not everyone rejects murder assualt rape and theft as bad. that's why we have these laws.

 

It's unclear what your intent was with the creation of this thread. It seems to me like you're saying we should abide some aggression because some of that aggression calls other aggression bad. Am I close? Do you see the absurdity when expressed in those terms?

yes and no. i'm not against the idea of anarchy, in the sence of no government. but even anarchy would be based on a set of rules requiring or at least permitting the use of force against force. and that being the case, you cannot say law is an opinion with a gun.

 

If a random security business decides to patrol your street, do they then have the right to extract a payment from you for this "service"? Of course not, because you have never agreed to purchase the service. The same applies to governments. Also, please realize that imprisonment of the innocent is a serious crime, that destroys people's normal life. In addition, prison guards further mistreat the people they have abducted, for example by doing strip-searches, which is similar to rape/molestation, because it is involuntary. This often happens with official approval, so then it fully reflects on the government as an institution. Imagine a private agency would do the same.

well let's say that 10 of your fellow nieghbors agree to pay for a security business, but you absolulty refuse to. what do you expect the security agancy to do, skip over your house somehow? if you benifit from thier services, you should be laible for the service.

 

i know what happens in prisions and i find it despicable. but i'm not convinced a privately run prision would do any better. if i had to gamble, they would run forced labor camps. i know, libertarians are against the intation of force, and thus agianst prisions with forced labor camps. but how do you ensure this doesn't happen?

[Phillip Brix]

 

If it is indeed true that no private company provides it, it is good to ask the question: Why is that? Is it because of the threat of fines or imprisonment? Or because it is difficult to compete against agencies that have a guaranteed theft-based income? Governments use an unjust business model. I would recommend reading some more libertarian literature about anarchy, and a new world of understanding might open.

people often want things without paying for them. I've been just as guilty of this as anyone. society faces a difficult problem. how do you remove crime, which everyone benifits from, without requiring people pay for it? if you're successful in removing crime, people don't feel a need to pay. if you're unsuccessful, more money might be required, yet people will generally be reluctant to give more money to a program that's been unsuccessful so far.

i'm not saying forcing people to pay is the best answer. or even a good answer. what i'm saying is that i'd rather people who benifit from a service be required to contribute by thier community, than everyone having their own personal enforcement system. that option just seems too haphazard to me. i know, i'm making an opinion statement. not an argument. i'm just trying to express my viewpoint.

[AynRand]

there are certain laws that the goevernment enforces that i do not consider an opinion with a gun.heres just a small list.

anti murder is not an opinion with a gun.

anti theft is not an opinion with a gun.

anti rape is not an opinion with a gun.

anti assualt is not an opinion with a gun.

anti pullution is not an opinion with a gun.

Maybe I have misunderstood you're position on this, but governments do not support any of these instances in the way the NAP does. In fact many Governments violate every instance you have just given.

For example the U.S. invasion of Iraq definitively was not anti murder.

Taxation is not anti theft.

As for your anti rape statement http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/indias-rapists-escape-punishment-because-they-support-its-government-states-legal-expert-1452577

Police brutatlity is not anti assualt.

The U.S. Federal Government is the largest polluter in the world. http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government/

[Phillip Brix]

i'm saying you need a definition of law that includes these laws.

i know government is poor at enforcing them, but that doesn't make the law itself invalid.

even in a stateless society you would have these laws.

they wouldn't be enforced by a central coersive agency but these laws none-the-less.