John R Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Common mistake. Aggression is the initiation of the use of force. In that phrase, "force" is far less important than "initiation." Thank you for that clarification. I can see where you are coming from with the rape analogy. However, rape is illegal, giving far more options of prevention. Government & it's processes, on the other hand, are legal. This gives Government a huge advantage over rape. I guess my question is, what is the endgame for getting to a free society without the use of the vote?
dsayers Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 I can see where you are coming from with the rape analogy. However, rape is illegal, giving far more options of prevention. Government & it's processes, on the other hand, are legal. This gives Government a huge advantage over rape. I guess my question is, what is the endgame for getting to a free society without the use of the vote? You just said it yourself when you used (il)legal as if that's an objective standard. We cannot get together and vote for rape to be legal because all the wishing in the world couldn't change the fact that it is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.
Crallask Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Isn't voting in the big government statist paradigm similar to being an inmate who voices what they desire on the lunch menu?
John R Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 You just said it yourself when you used (il)legal as if that's an objective standard. We cannot get together and vote for rape to be legal because all the wishing in the world couldn't change the fact that it is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong word. I'm using (il)legal in the same way you want a free society to be legal. Are you dismissing the possibility that rape couldn't, one day, be on the ballot or just right-out legalized because it's immoral? You are giving the government a lot of credit. Abortion is legal and we didn't get to vote for it. The current government, itself, is legal and there was no vote for that. Isn't voting in the big government statist paradigm similar to being an inmate who voices what they desire on the lunch menu? yes, that is a way of looking at it. I think a better prison analogy would be that the inmates get to vote on who their guards and warden are. Eventually, they could be living in unlocked cells, open visitation rights and maybe even furloughs. Yes, they are still living behind a wall, but that's how a free state would have to work until the world became free, as well. Look at Unions. They have voted themselves so many benefits, they are crippling large company's, cities, and even states. With philosophy, we could harness the power of mob rule. All we have to do, is turn the mob into philosophers. And instead of voting for free shit, we would vote for less government. I think it would be more peaceful than the alternative of not voting. If the people that want little or no government didn't vote, that would mean the only people voting are the people that want large government and free stuff (just like the Unions). Therefore, the the economy will crash. Hopefully, before they take your guns, money and property. Thousands, if not millions will die of starvation, civil war or invasion. If we can pull ourselves out of the ashes of that (and we don't belong to Russian), maybe a free society will emerge...until we create a new government or we finally do get taken over. But, that is just how I see it.
dsayers Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 I'm using (il)legal in the same way you want a free society to be legal. I've never said that I want a free society to be legal. I've said that I accept that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. If you think in terms of (il)legal instead of exists, then I'm afraid you're not free even in your own mind
John R Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 I've never said that I want a free society to be legal. I've said that I accept that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. If you think in terms of (il)legal instead of exists, then I'm afraid you're not free even in your own mind Oh, the power of words...Just because you speak French, don't make you a Frenchman. It sounds like we are on the same page. However, I'm speak with the mentality of getting to a free society, where you are speaking in 'role play', like we are already in one. The terms and language will change the closer we get.
john cena Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 My logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP Your argument is not valid because you build a strawman at 6:00 by saying "all he did was share his cognitions, his thoughts". In reality, there is a monetary transaction going on, which is certainly tangible. It is not just a thought. If the hitman himself is not immoral, then if person A tells person B to kill person C, person C can not use force against B because he is not a moral actor. I don't really understand the point of the video to be honest, and taking moral responsibility away from one group is the essence of statism, isn't it? 1 1
dsayers Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Your argument is not valid because you build a strawman at 6:00 by saying "all he did was share his cognitions, his thoughts". In reality, there is a monetary transaction going on And? If I pay you to do something immoral, you are free to decline. taking moral responsibility away from one group is the essence of statism, isn't it? This is begging the question. You can only take something from somebody that they already have. If I observe that you have no loaf of bread in your house, I didn't take your bread from you.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 In reality, there is a monetary transaction going on, In reality, there is an offer of a monetary transaction. The thing is, asking someone to kill someone else for you, although a bad thing to do, does not violate the NAP. The action of asking someone to do harm to someone else can be universalized without contradiction under the UPB framework. Perhaps that which is "immoral" and that which violates the NAP, could be two separate, but overlapping categories. Another problem with classifying asking someone to do harm as a violation of the NAP, is that one should then be able to use force to stop it. So, if a crazy person on the street says "hey man, will you kill that person over there"? I should be morally able to use deadly force against him to stop him from saying that. That doesn't quite make sense does it?
john cena Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 In reality, there is an offer of a monetary transaction. The thing is, asking someone to kill someone else for you, although a bad thing to do, does not violate the NAP. The action of asking someone to do harm to someone else can be universalized without contradiction under the UPB framework. Perhaps that which is "immoral" and that which violates the NAP, could be two separate, but overlapping categories. Another problem with classifying asking someone to do harm as a violation of the NAP, is that one should then be able to use force to stop it. So, if a crazy person on the street says "hey man, will you kill that person over there"? I should be morally able to use deadly force against him to stop him from saying that. That doesn't quite make sense does it? You seem to misunderstand my point. Another strawman is that the hitman is no longer a moral agent because he is "a simpleton", when in reality this person could be a highly trained very competent individual. A CIA asset for example. How can you possibly call that person a tool if they have full moral personhood? How can you possibly determine the difference? So are you saying that the person who hires a hitman is not responsible for who he kills? Also IDK why someone felt the need to de-rep me. I'm just pointing out the same things that any non anarchist would..
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 So are you saying that the person who hires a hitman is not responsible for who he kills? Here is the problem. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, and they fail to do it, then I am not morally responsible for murder, because no one got murdered. If I hire a hitman to kill someone and they are successful in killing that person, then I am responsible for murder? How can the same action be a violation of the NAP in once instance, and then not a violation of the NAP in the other instance? This is a problem. The only way to solve it is to say that the only one who violated the NAP was the hitman. Otherwise you have a contradiction. You have to understand, not violating the NAP is necessary, but not always sufficient for someone to be considered a good person
MrNlul77 Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Also IDK why someone felt the need to de-rep me. I'm just pointing out the same things that any non anarchist would.. It was me that de-rep'ed you, I read your post, i didnt agree with what you said, so i hit the button. I mis-used the button really, i used it as a dis-aggreement button rather than a de-rep button. I can now see that you just arent following the logic and that you seem to be trying to work it through, if i could I'd remove it. Also, being an anarchist, or not, has nothing to do with the consistency of the logic.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 In a free society, any reasonable DRO would still drop the guy who ordered a hitman to kill even if the guy didn't technically violate the NAP.
john cena Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Here is the problem. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, and they fail to do it, then I am not morally responsible for murder, because no one got murdered. If I hire a hitman to kill someone and they are successful in killing that person, then I am responsible for murder? How can the same action be a violation of the NAP in once instance, and then not a violation of the NAP in the other instance? This is a problem. The only way to solve it is to say that the only one who violated the NAP was the hitman. Otherwise you have a contradiction. You have to understand, not violating the NAP is necessary, but not always sufficient for someone to be considered a good person Are you implying that attempted murder does not violate the NAP? I don't see how it is relevant that the hit is unsuccessful, because it could have been stopped any number of ways, including by someone exercising self defense. It was me that de-rep'ed you, I read your post, i didnt agree with what you said, so i hit the button. I mis-used the button really, i used it as a dis-aggreement button rather than a de-rep button. I can now see that you just arent following the logic and that you seem to be trying to work it through, if i could I'd remove it. Also, being an anarchist, or not, has nothing to do with the consistency of the logic. Do not worry, it is just a number, thanks for ballsing up though. In a free society, any reasonable DRO would still drop the guy who ordered a hitman to kill even if the guy didn't technically violate the NAP. The would the DRO not be violating the NAP? Seems that you're the inconsistent one.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 The person who actually attempted to initiate the force would be in violation of the NAP. That would be the hitman.
Libertus Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 You need to establish a causal chain for these types of claims. Did the mafia boss initiate a causal reaction by sending a man? Meaning, did he cause a man to go kill somebody? yes/no/why? Did he initiate a causal reaction by threatening an agent? yes/no/why?
John R Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 If getting to self defense is the goal, couldn't you argue that the politician bought your vote with a promise? And If he can't deliver, you can vote him out.
Cuffy_Meigs Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 We can probably all agree being threatened with death removes moral culpability. But I think the grey area when receiving lesser threats is a little less grey than has been suggested. Suppose A delivers a 'minor' threat to C, who duly murders B. It seems to me that one of two situations applies: 1) For this particular individual ©, this was absolutely NOT a minor threat. It may have meant nothing much to you or I but surely it must have been truly terrifying for person C. Furthermore we may assume that person A knew it or they wouldn't have used it as a threat. 2) Person C did not perceive it to be much of a threat either but grasped the opportunity to kill B anyway. In which case person C holds considerable responsibility.
jpahmad Posted April 11, 2016 Author Posted April 11, 2016 We can probably all agree being threatened with death removes moral culpability. But I think the grey area when receiving lesser threats is a little less grey than has been suggested. Yes, that's why I included the idea of "avoidability" in my video.
Libertus Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 We can probably all agree being threatened with death removes moral culpability. Will somebody please step up and make that case instead of repeating the conclusion?
John R Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Will somebody please step up and make that case instead of repeating the conclusion? How about this... The threat of anything, is a deceit-in-progress. as long as the threat looms, it counts as the actual deed.
regevdl Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 I remember a quote from Tom Woods about this topic. His position (this was 2 years ago) was that if he was in a concentration camp and they were given a vote on to be set free to change the guards (who might be more lenient) or whatever then he would vote and not question the morality. I struggled with this analogy but have realized we are all still in a coercive existance...we are in a sense in a 'concentration' camp of sorts...bound by many chains. So yeah.... if there is a chance to improve our situation or use the voting/election/campaign process as a way to talk about things that normally aren't received. I see elections as everyone finally waking up and placing themselves in a 'state of emergency'. They've been silent and asleep for a few years and now it all boils down to this so they have to hurry up and shoehorn everything they were scared to say before into their conversations. And by 'they' I mean average voters, not candidates necessarily. YOu ever notice that? The people around post food pictures, sports updates and such, they mock anyone who consistantly posts inconvenient truths about govenrment or the process of voting, etc for YEARS and when we enter an election year suddenly they are ALL opinionated and care a bunch about what's happening. So I sort of see elections as an opportunities to let the slaves talk freely and I don't see elections or voting as an end game. Just another step in the process to expose truth.... if the voters use the opportunity wisely. I think Libertarians get a lot of credit for this but still have their issues and biases. So for me I don't see it as immoral for that reason. it's a method to open our mind and thus future behaviors to more freedom. If I need to vote now to have these discusscions and get people excited and influenced and actived which will earn me more credibility and they will be more open to the scam of voting and so on and teach their kids and make others more aware, then the end result will be the desired out come in the far future anyway. I hope that all made sense. lol I found this video a few years ago when I first found out about Libertarianism. It sort of points out some of the same principles. I shared this a lot with people who are startled easily. lol It seem to be the softest landing for them to get hte conversation started about these topics and NAP. 1
Cuffy_Meigs Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 'A' and only 'A' has the power to determine whether a murder is committed or not. C's only choice is whether the murder is committed on C or on B.
John R Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 That's merely another assertion. If you truly believe you are being threatened it would mean you believe there are only 2 outcomes. Option 1: they fulfill the action against you Option 2: they tricked you into believing they were going to act against you. If option 2 happens, then the actual action against you was merely a trick (a simple deceit). But while in the process of threatening it is a deceit to make you believe option 1.
Libertus Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 If they threaten me with death, and I believe them, do I not have a choice? I gave an example of a terrorists threatening to kill me if I don't bring a bomb to a school. Would you bomb a school to save your own life? I think I wouldn't. I believe, and I can't say for sure, since, luckily, i have never been in such a situation, that I would decline and say "kill me if you must". Such acts have taken place. Sometimes, humans refuse to murder other humans, and are ready to suffer death or abuse as the consequence. They make a choice, even though there is coercion involved. I would rather be a murder victim than a murderer, thank you very much, and I hope, many people think the same way. That's why I don't think the case has been made to say "if you're threatened, it absolves you of all responsibility for your actions". It's the Nuremberg defense, it didn't work then, and it doesn't work today.
jpahmad Posted April 13, 2016 Author Posted April 13, 2016 Great, you are very brave and noble Libertus. How about if someone threatened to set you kid on fire in front of you if you didn't bomb a school? I'm sure that changes things.
John R Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 "if you're threatened, it absolves you of all responsibility for your actions". I think you are correct. I see now that we where thinking the same all along. I was confusing your above statement for that of whom threatened you. As you can see in my argument above, what the threat actually is, is irrelevant. You can always weight the' threat claim' against the options. Like, I'm going to kill you if you don't give me $100. you can kill the guy (or attempt to kill the guy), but i would give him the $100. How about if someone threatened to set you kid on fire in front of you if you didn't bomb a school? That is one sick mofo. Because he is sick, doesn't mean you can be morally clear of murder. You can do it, just not morally.
jpahmad Posted April 13, 2016 Author Posted April 13, 2016 That is one sick mofo. Because he is sick, doesn't mean you can be morally clear of murder. You can do it, just not morally. Or you can just say that you are not a "moral agent", which simplifies the whole thing.
John R Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Or you can just say that you are not a "moral agent", which simplifies the whole thing. I'm think we are on the same page in the definition of moral(s), but let me make sure... A moral is what you believe. like, back in the day, slavery was moral. I don't believe we are talking about this moral. I think we are talking about 'Absolute Morals', like NAP. A moral, until un-corrupted, can change (for better or worse) until you hit the 'absolute moral' or chaos. The 'absolute moral' is the point were the punishment is equal to the crime. For 'absolute Morals', if your argument has a clause or exception you haven't hit the 'absolute moral', because clauses and exceptions are corruption. If we use your latest argument as an 'absolute moral' then: A sick mofo threatens to kill your family if you don't kill someone should be equal to The current government threatens to kill your family if you don't pay taxes. We do it, but it's not moral. Slavery (in the west) is an excellent example of an accepted 'absolute moral'. Slavery is morally wrong because no one wants to be enslaved. The government enforcement on slavery is extremely low in comparison to the enforcement of taxes.
Libertus Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 jpahmad, instead of switching around the examples, how about you respond to my point, without the attitude? > Great, you are very brave and noble Libertus. How about if someone threatened to set you kid on fire in front of you if you didn't bomb a school? I'm sure that changes things.If I did it, I'd be doing something immoral for selfish reasons (my kid is valuable to me).
labmath2 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 'A' and only 'A' has the power to determine whether a murder is committed or not. C's only choice is whether the murder is committed on C or on B. I'll put that more accurately for you. A and only A has the power to choose to commit murder or not. C and only C has the power to choose to commit murder or not. This does not make us unsympathetic to C's dilemma, but we have to be accurate.
jpahmad Posted April 14, 2016 Author Posted April 14, 2016 If I did it, I'd be doing something immoral for selfish reasons (my kid is valuable to me). If you bombed the school in this extremely unlikely scenario, I certainly wouldn't judge you to be an immoral person because of it. It wouldn't effect my view of you as a upstanding member of society, and I would still do business with you even after that horrible ordeal. None of the victims in the school bombing would hate you for what you did, nor would just about anyone in the world, considering the circumstances you were in. In just about everyone's book, you would be vindicated as someone who was unfortunately in a horrible situation and was manipulated by an evil person to do a certain action. No one would label your action as "immoral." No one would label it as "moral" either. You were simply turned into a robot. You were not a moral agent.
John R Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 If you bombed the school in this extremely unlikely scenario, I certainly wouldn't judge you to be an immoral person because of it. It wouldn't effect my view of you as a upstanding member of society, and I would still do business with you even after that horrible ordeal. None of the victims in the school bombing would hate you for what you did, nor would just about anyone in the world, considering the circumstances you were in. In just about everyone's book, you would be vindicated as someone who was unfortunately in a horrible situation and was manipulated by an evil person to do a certain action. No one would label your action as "immoral." No one would label it as "moral" either. You were simply turned into a robot. You were not a moral agent. I think I see your argument now. I think you are confusing 'morals' with 'socially acceptable'. Society greatly influences a person, but only the person can decides their morals, and an Absolute Moral is hard to shake.
dsayers Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I think I see your argument now. I think you are confusing 'morals' with 'socially acceptable'. Society greatly influences a person, but only the person can decides their morals, and an Absolute Moral is hard to shake. I think you are confusing morals with values. Morality is objective and not up to us.
Recommended Posts