 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
Laz,
quote:
What personal message would you have for children born with Cerebral Palsy and Spina Bifida in a Libertarian nation? |
What personal message? Well, only that children born with cerebral palsy don't have any more of a claim on my money than children born without cerebral palsy - that is, no claim at all. Why should need create entitlement? That's ridiculous.
quote:
I think it's highly unlikely that an unsupported person with profound disabilities will retain much dignity. |
And I'm not really sure that's relevant. Dignity/pride doesn't matter for **** when compared to rights.
quote:
So your government's useless? |
Certainly not. It's very useful, in that it is used to keep people - even needy people - from robbing me.
Oh well. Again, need doesn't create entitlement.
quote:
I'd have probably starved to death, |
Only if you didn't eat.
quote:
or ended up in prison in 1990 |
Only if you committed crimes, for example, stealing food.
quote:
Poor bloody families of handicapped kids requiring 24-hour support. Who would support them? |
I dunno. Not really my problem, though. In any case, these families always had the option to abort, or, for that matter, refuse to have kids if they could not economically afford them.
Monk,
quote:
It seems to me you've made a choice to live in the U.S instead of some lawless country without authorities of any sort. I'm sure such countries exist out there in the third world, countries where you can own any guns you'd like, take all the drugs you'd like and never see a tax collector. I understand why you prefer a place that has running water, peace and prosperity, but as far as I can see, your decision to live in the U.S means you've actually valued your material goods and your personal security higher than your freedom. So the question is how this can be consistant with the rest of your beliefs? |
Your position fails because of your premise that Libertarians are in favor of lawless countries. This obviously isn't the case at all - we favor strong laws that prevent people from violating the individual freedom of anyone else.
UR,
quote:
Death by starvation is a very strong form of coercion. |
No it isn't. Dying is natural. Starving is also natural, if you don't eat. The threat that you might die if you don't commit an immoral act neither forces you to act immorally or justifies the potential act. Death is simply a fact of life.
quote:
Suppose you need conditions a1, a2, ... an to do E, lacking any one of these means you are not free to do E. Free as in the ability to do something as per your wish. |
No, freedom is not "doing whatever you want" - rather, freedom is simply the absence of coercion, or, put more precisely, the absence of human coercion (although I think the word "human" is implied with the word "coercion", in this context).
Imran,
I'm not getting into a debate about moral relativity with you - I've already adequately demonstrated to you that moral relativity makes no sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:31
|
|
Berzerker,
Maybe I was a bit unclear on things, I'll break it down and ask that if you don't agree with the conclusion, you'll point out the faulty parts of the argument:
Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world.
Premise 3: If you so desire, you have the options to move.
Conclusion: Your personal freedom isn't your highest priority in the matter of choosing where you live. The fact that you're staying where you are means that you've valued something else - friends, family, running water, security or whatever - higher than your personal freedom.
I'm not saying that you have to pack your bags if you don't like what the government does. I'm merely wondering why, when freedom seems to be your number one priority, you haven't made that choice on your own.
And if you think the "let's pack our bags for (insert ****ed-up third world country here) argument is far-fetched then we can apply the same concept to states within the U.S. I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:31
|
|
Oh, and hi Floyd! Of course, if you want to answer Berzerker's question and tell us why you chose Texas, you're welcome to do so. I'll just read your recent post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world. |
Interesting. Remember that, by free, we mean "lack of coercion", and by extension, laws preventing others from violating our rights. You can easily argue that a FEW nations in Western Europe protect social freedoms to a greater degree, however, these nations do not protect economic freedoms much at all, in comparison. I'm not sure that you could come up with a nation in which economic freedoms are protected to a greater degree, and I'm fairly certain that you cannot come up with a nation in which BOTH social AND economic freedoms are protected to a greater degree than in the US.
So, certainly, the US does not qualify as a truly free nation - but neither does any other nation.
quote:
I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there. |
I don't know about Berzerker, but I'm strongly considering joining the Free State Project. At this point, there are numerous things that prevent this from being a possibility (first and foremost, the project isn't even in full swing, and also, significantly, I want to graduate first).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Of course, if you want to answer Berzerker's question and tell us why you chose Texas, you're welcome to do so. |
Actually, I lived in Texas, up through my 18th birthday, as a result of my parents. Following my 18th birthday, I lived/live in Texas because I go to school at UT, which is one of the better universities in the nation that I could afford. Will I necessarily STAY in Texas? Possibly not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:31
|
|
Floyd,
I don't know what state in the U.S is most "free", not by your and not by my definition, but I'm pretty sure it's not Texas. So when you say you want to graduate first, I say that's a sensible choice and the essence of my entire argument; there are things - in this case, a good education - that you guys value higher than freedom from coercion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Monk - quote:
Berzerker,
Maybe I was a bit unclear on things, I'll break it down and ask that if you don't agree with the conclusion, you'll point out the faulty parts of the argument:
Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world.
Premise 3: If you so desire, you have the options to move.
Conclusion: Your personal freedom isn't your highest priority in the matter of choosing where you live. The fact that you're staying where you are means that you've valued something else - friends, family, running water, security or whatever - higher than your personal freedom.
I'm not saying that you have to pack your bags if you don't like what the government does. I'm merely wondering why, when freedom seems to be your number one priority, you haven't made that choice on your own.
And if you think the "let's pack our bags for (insert ****ed-up third world country here) argument is far-fetched then we can apply the same concept to states within the U.S. I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there. |
I had and have commitments to family limiting my freedom. When those commitments are fulfilled, I may move... Where? I'm not sure at this point, but away from Kansas. Monk, you're still missing the point, it is illogical and hypocritical for liberals to argue that people who don't want to be forced to fund what liberals want from government can simply move away. They wouldn't accept that as a valid argument if Republicans told them to move if they don't like Bush. And if Bush and the GOP decided to fund right wing religious schools with liberals' money, the liberals wouldn't move away even though they'd strongly object, so their hypocritical dismissal of our arguments in opposition to their desires shows just how vapid they can be...
It's the old "love it or leave it" nonsense.
We have no moral burden to leave our homes because liberals have found a relatively safe way to steal from us, for many people, leaving commitments behind would be immoral. Now, you say I place a higher priority on these commitments than my freedom. Yup, so what? That means you get to prioritise away my freedom too? We all prioritise in one way or another with freedom taking a baskseat to commitments, from people who want to raise kids to people who accept jobs in exchange for money, that doesn't create for us a "right" to steal from others.
I know the left wants to make this just about "selfishness" because they think stealing and spending other people's money makes them compassionate and anyone who disagrees is immoral, but for me to be a liberal requires that I accept their assertion that stealing is moral as long as I hire a politician to do the stealing... No amount of "you're selfish" can convince me stealing is moral, it's not about "selfishness", it's about my refusal to steal from others... If that's "selfish", then it just shows why the liberal ideology isn't playing with a full deck...
So when liberals call me selfish for not helping them steal from others, I remind them that what they are asking me to do violates my moral code. If my moral code allowed, no, demanded I commit murder, would liberals be "selfish" for refusing to help me murder others? Government already takes more than half of many people's income and all the liberals can do is spit (verbally) in their faces if they object (even when they don't object, consider the liberal mantra about "the rich aren't paying their fair share"). That makes "the rich" out to be freeloaders when they already pay a ****load in taxes. The fact liberals never show any gratitude to the people they tax the hell out of to pay for their "compassion" shows just what kind of people they are - ingrates. Sorry for being harsh, but that's how I see it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz -
3rd world nations are theoretically libertarian?  |
Congratulations Berserker! You just won this week's award for not reading the post you answered! To me the two are interchangeable (that's "interchangeable", Berserker. "Interchangeable". Got that? Good. Note also the "To me", inevitably used to signpost subjectivity) because I'm convinced their natural tendency would be/is a tendency to slide into becoming nasty, brutish ****-holes. I had a feeling that line would hook you when I wrote it- somehow I got the impression you wouldn't exercise caution and enquire what my opinion meant.
quote:
Dignity is not obtained by stealing, "legally" or not.
|
When acquisition is lawful it ain't theft, and there ain't a damned thing any number of debates on "natural rights" can do to stop that. You bet your well-nourished and healthy butt that the lawful use of funds raised by taxation to which one is fully entitled is one hell of a good way to ensure dignity in life.
quote:
Is that a retraction? A tiny minority of "abled" people support libertarianism so what does that say about your indictment?  away, Laz...
|
Well shucks. You convinced me. Libertarianism is about as popular as necrotising fasciitis of the genitals among both able-bodied people and the disabled. We're agreed. I'll hold my hand up and agree with that.
Though I'll still maintain that it's even less popular among the disabled. Going to prove me wrong?
quote:
Laz, people weren't free in medieval times. If charity fails, it's because liberals don't put their own money where their mouths are. But charity succeeds in this country, look at how much money was raised in the wake of 9/11.
|
No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point.
9-11, by any standards, was hardly typical, and it would be highly disingenous of you to suggest it was. Do CP charities ever have their plight publicised by wall-to-wall TV coverage 24 hours a day over just about every TV station on the planet? Nope.
quote:
Just speaking the truth, do you think Swiss and German institutions should have to return wealth stolen from Jews? If so, why? You obviously believe stealing isn't stealing if it's "legal".
|
Yes I do believe the Nazi plunder should by returned. Because they were stolen. And once again, appropriation is only stealing if it's unlawful. That's the law, baby. We could keep this up for days, you know.
quote:
I have a better idea, try stealing from others without hiding behind government.
|
That would be breaking the law, Berzerker. Why would I want to do that?
quote:
Why? I was "homeless" and without government handouts and I didn't starve or end up in jail. Contrary to this liberal mindset that the poor need you, I sure didn't when I was poor.
|
Full story please. I'd love to know how you got by. Don't tell me.....student years? Parental handouts? I feel your pain.
quote:
You aren't paying attention, I asked if you would support abolishing the welfare system except for the disabled who can't be supported privately. Btw, it isn't my fault if you kill your child because I refuse to take food from my family to support yours. You are responsible, doh! Let us know when you get back from Africa and your mission to help the disabled there... Oh wait, you say that's their problem?
|
The answer (God I hate stating the bleeding obvious for those who can't pick up on inferrals) is "no".
Walk on by.....
Africa is, indeed, my problem- at least partially. I don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't. I'm happy about the portion of my taxes going on overseas development. That's why I feel no particular to make ANOTHER trip to Africa. Thanks for letting me bring that up, incidentally.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Floyd, I can't be bothered to parse up your post, |
That's really not a surprise.
quote:
after each point. You have a rock where your heart should be. |
As I told Ben, you might wanna be careful with those accusations.
And in any case, someone who favors stealing in order to live is certainly far worse than someone who would rather die than steal - you might say the first person in that example has the rock in their heart.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Laz - quote:
BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "FREEDOM"!!!!!!
BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE TAX-COLLECTIN', WELFARE PAYIN', IRAQ INVADIN' U.S. ADMINISTRATION "FREEDOM"!!!!
HE'S OUT OF THE CLUB!!!! HE WILL NOT SPEND THE BLESSED HEREAFTER ETERNITY LAPPING AT THE GRIZZLED OLD LOINS OF AYN RAND!!! HE'S A BACKSLIDER!!!! HE'S A TAX PAYIN' WHORE LIKE THE REST OF US AND HE'S GETTIN' A STAR-SPANGLED STIFFIE OUT OF IT!!!! OH SAINTED DAY!!!! |
Can you quote me?
quote:
Congratulations Berserker! You just won this week's award for not reading the post you answered! |
Congratulations Laz, you've just accused me of doing what you just did (see above).
quote:
To me the two are interchangeable (that's "interchangeable", Berserker. "Interchangeable". Got that? Good. |
Hmm... and interchangeability means incompatability now? You said this in the previous sentence (you know, the sentence I quoted?):
quote:
these theoretical libertarian nations or poor, backward 3rd world hellholes. |
To which I asked:
quote:
3rd world nations are theoretically libertarian? |
So now you claim this "interchangeability" means these 3rd world nations are not theoretically libertarian?
quote:
Note also the "To me", inevitably used to signpost subjectivity) because I'm convinced their natural tendency would be/is a tendency to slide into becoming nasty, brutish ****-holes. |
Obviously it is to you, I wasn't expecting factual evidence, just some rationale. The northern US before the Civil War was not as you describe and it was largely libertarian, much more so than 3rd world dictatorships.
quote:
I had a feeling that line would hook you when I wrote it- somehow I got the impression you wouldn't exercise caution and enquire what my opinion meant. |
The intricacy of your "trap" is a sight to behold. Your posts are becoming quite shrill, what does that signpost represent?
quote:
Well shucks. You convinced me. Libertarianism is about as popular as necrotising fasciitis of the genitals among both able-bodied people and the disabled. We're agreed. I'll hold my hand up and agree with that. |
I didn't expect a graceful retraction from you, that would require a sense of dignity. Do you need more federal money to become dignified?
quote:
Though I'll still maintain that it's even less popular among the disabled. Going to prove me wrong? |
It's your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
quote:
No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point. |
If charity fails (and if you read my post, I offered proof to the contrary), it is because liberals won't put their money where their mouths are. Now, why is that?
quote:
9-11, by any standards, was hardly typical, and it would be highly disingenous of you to suggest it was. Do CP charities ever have their plight publicised by wall-to-wall TV coverage 24 hours a day over just about every TV station on the planet? Nope. |
We have a welfare state so why would the media focus our attention on the needs of welfare recipients? The media does that quite a bit and we already have a welfare system. The fact remains Americans give lots to charity and could afford even more if liberals weren't taxing them to pay for all the crap we find in the budget. If charity fails, prove it. The amount needed to support disabled people who lack support is minsicule compared to the money spent on the welfare state.
quote:
Yes I do believe the Nazi plunder should by returned. Because they were stolen. And once again, appropriation is only stealing if it's unlawful. That's the law, baby. We could keep this up for days, you know |
Hey Laz, the Nazis stole LEGALLY! They ran the government, they made the laws, and you're being hypocritical... They plundered but your stealing is just fine and dandy...
quote:
That would be breaking the law, Berzerker. Why would I want to do that? |
Which is just more hypocrisy, jail thieves who have the guts to do their own stealing while you steal from the comfort of the voting booth.
quote:
Full story please. I'd love to know how you got by. Don't tell me.....student years? Parental handouts? I feel your pain. |
I worked, ever try that? 
quote:
The answer (God I hate stating the bleeding obvious for those who can't pick up on inferrals) is "no". |
You didn't read my previous post on this point accurately and used your mistake to launch into a tirade, so I was just repeating my question to get an answer. You can't even answer a simple question without insulting me? Is this that famous liberal tolerance we hear so much about?
So, you don't accept my proposition. Why did you mention the disabled then when your real agenda is a liberal welfare state? Oh, an appeal to emotion? "Yes, if we don't legalise stealing on a massive scale to fund everything liberals want, then we'll push the disabled out there to shame our opponents." Hey Laz, since you've complained about the disabled who lack support, how am I to know the extent of your vision for a welfare state? Do you want me to put words in your mouth?
Hey Imran! Is that extreme? You want libertarians to compromise with people who won't compromise? How?
quote:
Africa is, indeed, my problem- at least partially. |
Partially?
quote:
I don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't. |
Oh I don't know, maybe the fact you spend alot of time sitting behind a computer trying to convince other people stealing is moral if it's legal? Well, except for those dastardly Nazis. Shall we go down a list of governments that plundered wealth from the citizenry which you would call stealing inspite of it being legal?
quote:
I'm happy about the portion of my taxes going on overseas development. That's why I feel no particular to make ANOTHER trip to Africa. Thanks for letting me bring that up, incidentally. |
Oh, you've gone to Africa to devote your time and money to support the disabled? A portion of your income taxes makes it to Africa? Better take a closer look... The few pennies that might make it there ain't supporting the disabled, it's going into the pockets of politicians, dictators, and bureaucrats who then use your money to buy weapons and soldiers to kill political opponents. Yes, I'm sure African dictators will shove the disabled out in front of them too if those government handouts from the US are threatened. Sorry Laz, but your efforts to hand out money to Africa and other countries has killed millions... Another sad truth...
Last edited by Berzerker on 10-11-2003 at 11:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
|
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz -
Can you quote me?
|
Yup. In fact I already did. Want me to post it again for that Andy Warhol-type effect?
quote:
Congratulations Laz, you've just accused me of doing what you just did (see above).
|
That's the beauty of the internet. With two protagonists building on minor misunderstandings, semantic variances and plain old communication breakdowns, startlingly different interpretations of even apparantly simple statements can result. What's more, both can usually be proved even in the face of the contradictory interpretation held by the other so in the end the winner is just whoever gets bored first. Have a banana.
quote:
Hmm... and interchangeability means incompatability now? You said this in the previous sentence (you know, the sentence I quoted?):
[QUOTE]
Nope. It still means "interchangeable". Got it? "Interchangeable", you see? They're entirely different words, distinguished by spelling and a host of semantics. Let me know if I can clear up any other sources of confusion.
[QUOTE]
So now you claim this "interchangeability" means these 3rd world nations are not theoretically libertarian?
|
Absolutely. Not liberatarian in the slightest, except that I think a key feature of both societies would be starvation in the streets.
quote:
Obviously it is to you, I wasn't expecting factual evidence, just some rationale. The northern US before the Civil War was not as you describe and it was largely libertarian, much more so than 3rd world dictatorships.
|
"Largely" libertarian is not "libertarian"- for one thing your subjective criteria means your definition of "largely" may differ from others. Some might consider that the laissez-faire Tory governments of Victorian times had a lot of liberatarian appeal, and that fell a long way short of any society I'd want to live in.
quote:
The intricacy of your "trap" is a sight to behold. Your posts are becoming quite shrill, what does that signpost represent?
You can't even answer a simple question without insulting me? Is this that famous liberal tolerance we hear so much about?
|
I'm sticking those two quotes together because I like the effect. Be a brave soldier, Berzerker. I'm going easy on you, trust me.
quote:
I didn't expect a graceful retraction from you, that would require a sense of dignity. Do you need more federal money to become dignified?
|
It certainly wasn't a graceful retraction. In fact, it wasn't a retraction at all. It was sarcasm.
quote:
If charity fails (and if you read my post, I offered proof to the contrary), it is because liberals won't put their money where their mouths are. Now, why is that?
|
No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point
Astute readers will have noticed that this is an exact, word-for-word repitition of the relevant section from my previous post. If Berzerker's just going to repeat himself I'm buggered if I'm going to do any different.
quote:
We have a welfare state so why would the media focus our attention on the needs of welfare recipients? The media does that quite a bit and we already have a welfare system. The fact remains Americans give lots to charity and could afford even more if liberals weren't taxing them to pay for all the crap we find in the budget. If charity fails, prove it. The amount needed to support disabled people who lack support is minsicule compared to the money spent on the welfare state.
|
Of course. There is the usual inefficiency, bureaucracy and undeserving cases, plus loads of other good causes. Unless you place your shiny penny directly into the recipient's hand, you'll find charities have drains on their funds too. In fact some are bordering on fraudulent.
quote:
Hey Laz, the Nazis stole LEGALLY! They ran the government, they made the laws, and you're being hypocritical...
|
They certainly did! Then laws were passed demanding that the funds be paid back! Welcome to "Fun with Laws" hour!
quote:
Which is just more hypocrisy, jail thieves who have the guts to do their own stealing while you steal from the comfort of the voting booth.
|
Aw, bless. Berzerker thinks I insult him but he's happy to call me a thief because I don't share him marginalised politics.
Deal with it. I say it's not theft. The police say it's not theft. The judges and juries say it's not theft. The government says it's not theft. The theft acts say it's not theft. My parish priest says it's not theft. Ultimately the only people who say it's theft are a small bunch of impotent moaners on the internet. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect to have too many people think you're making sense.
quote:
I worked, ever try that?
|
Crap example, wasn't it? "I was homeless yet never claimec welfare! (I was employed, of course)". Come back when you've experienced real hardship and we'll discuss it.
quote:
So, you don't accept my proposition. Why did you mention the disabled then when your real agenda is a liberal welfare state? Oh, an appeal to emotion? "Yes, if we don't legalise stealing on a massive scale to fund everything liberals want, then we'll push the disabled out there to shame our opponents."
|
Yup.
If not wanting to see people such as the disabled reduced to begging in the streets is just emotonal weakness, it's emotional weakness I'm more than comfortable with.
quote:
Oh I don't know, maybe the fact you spend alot of time sitting behind a computer trying to convince other people stealing is moral if it's legal? Well, except for those dastardly Nazis. Shall we go down a list of governments that plundered wealth from the citizenry which you would call stealing inspite of it being legal?
|
Go on then.
quote:
Oh, you've gone to Africa to devote your time and money to support the disabled?
|
Not just the disabled, and I admit that a desire to do some sightseeing played a strong influencing role, but yes.
quote:
A portion of your income taxes makes it to Africa? Better take a closer look... The few pennies that might make it there ain't supporting the disabled, it's going into the pockets of politicians, dictators, and bureaucrats who then use your money to buy weapons and soldiers to kill political opponents.
|
Back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously. Yes, some foreign aid goes astray. I'm realistic about these things. Other funds don't.
I'm impressed by this section. I'm already aware that you think I'm a thief, but I had no idea that the fact that a portion of my taxes go on overseas development means I'm guilty of crimes against humanity too.
quote:
Yes, I'm sure African dictators will shove the disabled out in front of them too if those government handouts from the US are threatened. Sorry Laz, but your efforts to hand out money to Africa and other countries has killed millions... Another sad truth... |
And genocide too? Where will we go from here?
I think more effort should have been made in your childhood to get you to share your toys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
NO, and someone like Bez is reat proof..he has a very strict moral code, in which the "greater good" is meaningless and in fact, Immoral. MOrality is a code by which individuals in a society should be have..how can "survival" be part of that?
Just think of the phrase "a necessary evil": if everything feel under morality, anything that was necessary to do woul be 'good'. We know that not to be true. |
I think the words 'necessary evil' are a misnomer. If someone admits something is necessary, I think that qualifies as being, at the very least, not immoral. I think those that say something is 'immoral, but necessary' aren't really saying the act is immoral at all. If it's necessary, I don't think it can be immoral. Maybe under other circumstances it is immoral, but the necessary action is done under those circumstances which make it not immoral.
If Berz does not believe in the greater good, then that is part of his moral beliefs. Those that do believe in a greater good and incorporate that, do believe it as part of their morality, or at the very least do not consider it immoral (so it's in the limbo area between moral and immoral, and I'd include it in the moral area).
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 11-11-2003 at 00:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
I think the words 'necessary evil' are a misnomer. If someone admits something is necessary, I think that qualifies as being, at the very least, not immoral. I think those that say something is 'immoral, but necessary' aren't really saying the act is immoral at all. If it's necessary, I don't think it can be immoral. Maybe under other circumstances it is immoral, but the necessary action is done under those circumstances which make it not immoral. |
Not immoral is not the same as moral. At best, they are amoral, at a point at which morality is meaningless. Morality is based on values, some of which can be irrational, opr highly inpractical. under such condition, you do what you can.
quote:
If Berz does not believe in the greater good, then that is part of his moral beliefs. Those that do believe in a greater good and incorporate that, do believe it as part of their morality, or at the very least do not consider it immoral (so it's in the limbo area between moral and immoral, and I'd include it in the moral area). |
Again, while there is moral and immoral, there is also Amoral. Most of the world lies well beyond human morality, even most of the human world..I mean, what is the moral significant of taking a shower? To most people it is an act devoid of meaning..though out there are the people for whom cleanliness is next to Godliness. The realm of politics and policy and war are full of Amoral acts, many viewed as immoral acts, made necessary by circumstance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Not immoral is not the same as moral. At best, they are amoral, at a point at which morality is meaningless. Morality is based on values, some of which can be irrational, opr highly inpractical. under such condition, you do what you can. |
I think that's my difference with you. I think that there the 'amoral' sphere in morality is much smaller.
In taking a shower example, remember morality is also a system which says what is right. I'm sure many people would say it is not right to stop taking showers for a span of, say, a week. It may be different for different people, but I think most people would have an opinion of whether it is right or wrong.
Only those things that people have no opinion if it is right or wrong is 'amoral'. Hygene is always subjected to standards of 'right'. People make decision if a hygenic practice is right and wrong. What is right is moral, what is wrong is immoral. That area where people don't care is amoral, but I think that area is very narrow.
Any 'necessary evil' basically ends with saying we were RIGHT because he had to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Laz - quote:
Yup. In fact I already did. Want me to post it again for that Andy Warhol-type effect? |
No, you didn't quote me saying any of the following:
quote:
BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "FREEDOM"!!!!!!
BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE TAX-COLLECTIN', WELFARE PAYIN', IRAQ INVADIN' U.S. ADMINISTRATION "FREEDOM"!!!!
HE'S OUT OF THE CLUB!!!! HE WILL NOT SPEND THE BLESSED HEREAFTER ETERNITY LAPPING AT THE GRIZZLED OLD LOINS OF AYN RAND!!! HE'S A BACKSLIDER!!!! HE'S A TAX PAYIN' WHORE LIKE THE REST OF US AND HE'S GETTIN' A STAR-SPANGLED STIFFIE OUT OF IT!!!! OH SAINTED DAY!!!! |
When you referred to "your government" I thought you were referring to the libertarian government I want, not the current US government. We are not free under the current US government, but of course some aspects of the US government are useful... That is not an endorsement of the government inspite of your "interpretation".
quote:
That's the beauty of the internet. With two protagonists building on minor misunderstandings, semantic variances and plain old communication breakdowns, startlingly different interpretations of even apparantly simple statements can result. What's more, both can usually be proved even in the face of the contradictory interpretation held by the other so in the end the winner is just whoever gets bored first. Have a banana. |
All of which didn't stop you from claiming I support the US government. Don't try to talk with a banana stuffed in your mouth, you won't make much sense.
quote:
Nope. It still means "interchangeable". Got it? "Interchangeable", you see? They're entirely different words, distinguished by spelling and a host of semantics. Let me know if I can clear up any other sources of confusion. |
"Nope"? Does that mean "interchangeability" means one can be replaced by that which is "interchangeable" or does it mean they are in fact incompatable? The confusion was created by your unsupported assertion that 3rd world hell holes are theoretically libertarian followed by the claim 3rd world hell holes are interchangeable with libertarianism only to deny making that equation because "interchangeable" doesn't really mean "interchangeable".
quote:
Absolutely. Not liberatarian in the slightest, except that I think a key feature of both societies would be starvation in the streets. |
So 3rd world hell holes are not theoretically libertarian in the slightest but they are interchangeable nonetheless? Starvation in 3rd world hell holes is usually caused by warring political factions using food as a weapon - the resulting starvation is man made, not because of libertarianism. Was there starvation in the northern US prior to the Civil War? Instead of just making stuff up, try offering some evidence.
quote:
"Largely" libertarian is not "libertarian"- for one thing your subjective criteria means your definition of "largely" may differ from others. |
The only reason I don't claim the north was libertarian is because there were some restrictions on personal freedom like homosexuality. The north did not have a welfare state and you claim not having a welfare state - the applicable part of libertarianism we are debating - results in a brutish hell hole where people starve. So you need to explain why the largely libertarian north did not have starvation without a welfare state.
quote:
Some might consider that the laissez-faire Tory governments of Victorian times had a lot of liberatarian appeal, and that fell a long way short of any society I'd want to live in. |
Do you have proof those Victorian governments were laissez faire? The last thing I'd call Britain then or at any other time is laissez faire. That Victorian period got it's name from the queen in charge, and that ain't freedom.
quote:
I'm sticking those two quotes together because I like the effect. Be a brave soldier, Berzerker. I'm going easy on you, trust me. |
So throwing around insults in ~half your posts is "going easy" on me? I like the effect too, your shrillness is also a sight to behold for all who believe in "liberal tolerance". Unlike you, I don't devote half (or more) of my responses to insults.
quote:
It certainly wasn't a graceful retraction. In fact, it wasn't a retraction at all. It was sarcasm. |
Ah, so you stand behind your mistakes even when they are shown to be mistakes. But while you didn't "retract" your claim, you did acknowledge your claim was wrong.
quote:
No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point |
So the reason liberals won't put their money where their mouths are is because they are ill-informed, have conflicting agendas, and so on? Did charity fail on 9/11? Oops, you already said charity was a success there.
quote:
Astute readers will have noticed that this is an exact, word-for-word repitition of the relevant section from my previous post. If Berzerker's just going to repeat himself I'm buggered if I'm going to do any different. |
Astute readers will have noticed you not only contradicted yourself by acknowledging charity was a success for 9/11, they'll notice you didn't answer my question.
quote:
Of course. There is the usual inefficiency, bureaucracy and undeserving cases, plus loads of other good causes. Unless you place your shiny penny directly into the recipient's hand, you'll find charities have drains on their funds too. In fact some are bordering on fraudulent. |
As opposed to all the fraud in the government's welfare system? That's quite a double standard there, Laz. That's right, the best system for charity is the most direct, the worst is the most indirect and most bureaucratic - i.e., government.
quote:
They certainly did! Then laws were passed demanding that the funds be paid back! Welcome to "Fun with Laws" hour! |
But the stealing was legal and you called it plunder. But you also claim stealing isn't stealing if it's legal. So the continues...
quote:
Aw, bless. Berzerker thinks I insult him but he's happy to call me a thief because I don't share him marginalised politics. |
I won't refrain from insulting people who insult me first, but I'm not insulting you Laz, by your own standard wrt the Nazis, it is possible for stealing to be legal and still call it stealing as you've just shown. If a thief steals, they are by definition a thief. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact. My goal is to get people to think about what they're doing by putting their actions into simple terms, not to insult people. Jesus was not insulting the adulteress when he told her to sin no more.
quote:
Deal with it. I say it's not theft. The police say it's not theft. The judges and juries say it's not theft. The government says it's not theft. The theft acts say it's not theft. My parish priest says it's not theft. |
Then the Nazis didn't steal either, but you say they did steal.
quote:
Ultimately the only people who say it's theft are a small bunch of impotent moaners on the internet. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect to have too many people think you're making sense. |
Yes, the opinions of the victims of theft dont count, just the opinions of the thieves. 
quote:
Crap example, wasn't it? "I was homeless yet never claimec welfare! (I was employed, of course)". Come back when you've experienced real hardship and we'll discuss it. |
Being homeless doesn't count as a hardship? I'll have to remember that one. I was homeless and I got out of that hardship by getting a job and working. You apparently would get out of that hardship by demanding politicians hand you other people's money. Which is harder, working your way out of the hardship or sticking your hand out and whining like a baby?
quote:
Yup.
If not wanting to see people such as the disabled reduced to begging in the streets is just emotonal weakness, it's emotional weakness I'm more than comfortable with. |
But you are using them to "justify" a massive welfare state. If they were really your concern, you'd focus on their needs and not on your own. And why would they be begging in the streets? Even with your beloved welfare state we see many private organisations serving the needs of people and we'd see many more if people weren't led into the "I pay taxes for that" mentality. Does the fact many people are literally taxed into poverty enter into the equation?
quote:
Not just the disabled, and I admit that a desire to do some sightseeing played a strong influencing role, but yes. |
I'll quote you, "back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously".
quote:
Back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously. Yes, some foreign aid goes astray. I'm realistic about these things. Other funds don't. |
My God Laz, didn't you know the reason for those 3rd world hell holes in Africa is because most African countries were (or still are) run by brutal thugs who use "aid" to get rich and kill people? Somalia and Liberia were perhaps the worst examples, but you get the picture.
quote:
I'm impressed by this section. I'm already aware that you think I'm a thief, but I had no idea that the fact that a portion of my taxes go on overseas development means I'm guilty of crimes against humanity too. |
You didn't commit the crimes, you merely helped fund the criminals and forced others to help fund them thru taxes.
quote:
And genocide too? Where will we go from here? |
Is there a worse place?
quote:
I think more effort should have been made in your childhood to get you to share your toys. |
I was never the one to get mad and take my ball home in the middle of a game. But I'm not surprised to see you confuse a desire to not help others steal with a desire to not share your own property. But in your world, maybe stealing is a euphemism for sharing. And if you want to insult my parents, do it to my face so I can share my knuckles with your teeth. Part of the welfare state involves funding of abortions, do you agree with that?
Last edited by Berzerker on 11-11-2003 at 08:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Why? What are you going to do? Disagree with me? |
Let's put it this way...if you needed a couple hundred bucks, I'd probably offer to send it to you.
quote:
Damn straight. Fortunately claiming welfare isn't stealing. |
Maybe, but supporting the existence of welfare, and voting to start or retain it, certainly is. Seeing as how you support the existence of the welfare state, you have no point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Don't bother. Ever. If you're going to call me a thief you can stick your charity up your arse. Let's both reap what we sow and see who's more comfortable with it. |
Fine, I won't bother. But now that the offer is there - and it is, by the way, serious - you can't accuse me of being a heartless bastard anymore.
Or, you could say that I am selfish, in that I am only giving money to prove a point - that is, giving for my own self interest. If this is true, then, acting in our own self interest - acting selfishly - can often times result in a benefit to others.
So which is it? Am I unselfish, or is being selfish not such a bad thing after all?
quote:
Nope. Fails under Common Law as there's no mens rea |
MENS REA: The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).
So, actually, there IS mens rea, as your state of mind indicates that you support the act, and, by voting, in a way commit the act, of depriving me of my money against my will.
quote:
Fails under statutory law as there's no statute. |
This is silly, as Berzerker has already pointed out to you. The Nazis stole, even if there was no "statute" against their theft.
quote:
The only place it's considered theft is between the ears of Libertarians. |
What we object to is taking our money without our consent. You're saying you don't object to this?
Oh, I see, it's OK for the government to do it, as long as it's legal. But you've already admitted that what the Nazis did was theft.
So maybe it's not theft, as long as it is going to "help" people. Is that how you're choosing to define "theft"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
LoA:
I did not justify it two different ways. If you are forced to pay into the welfare system, I'm not sure that I see anything morally wrong with utilizing the welfare system to recoup your losses. However, there IS something wrong with supporting such a system in the first place.
The existence of the welfare system is stealing. Utilizing the system to take your money back is not stealing (although a bad idea for other reasons).
Short answer? If you are forced to pay into social services, by all means, find a way to recoup your money - it's only stealing if you actually support and/or vote for the existence of such a system.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2003 09:16
|