 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Spiffor - quote:
But what happens if you are in a purist State like Floyd's, where every tax is considered theft? |
Floyd doesn't believe that, he accepts user fees as legitimate as well as lotteries and I imagine a few other taxes.
quote:
I happen to want to contribute to society (yes, even welfare) through taxes. Whenever I get my wage leaflet, I can only feel proud at the sight of the money I poured into the medication of the sick, the retirement of the elderly, the education of the young etc. Am I mad? |
I thought your belief system couldn't be imposed on others, now you want it imposed? Did you ask the majority if this was moral? There's all sort of good things I can do with money if only I can steal enough legally, that doesn't make my stealing moral.
quote:
I have no problem with you thinking your system is superior. I have a problem with you thinking you Berzerker are the highest form of morality on Earth, whose decisions are the wisest and truest morals. |
But you think your system is morally superior to mine, so what's wrong with me thinking my system is morally superior to yours? It's called hypocrisy, Spiffor. You make snide comments about people doing what you're doing...
quote:
Of course I can. That's why I don't want to live by the principles you dictate to me. |
But you said your morality is based on what the majority thinks, that isn't thinking for yourself, it's letting others think for you. The principle I want for us all is live and let live... If you find that unacceptable, will you leave those of us who like it out of your system where your "principles" are dictated to us?
quote:
Back to the political system then, since it is a common decision after all. WHo decides the punishment? |
We do through representative government.
quote:
Who decides whether the slaver should be mauled, quartered, simply killed with a firearm, whipped, imprisoned, fined, or whatever? Who decides that? Is the punishment for this offense, like all the specifics of public decisions encompassed in the golden rule? |
See above.
In short, the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action.
quote:
You'll always find loonies who wish to be enslaved, raped, abducted or whatever. Heck, there has even been one loonie who wanted to be eaten alive (Germany last year). Does this mean it is OK to eat other people? |
You missed what I said, human rights derive from "universal" desires. If someone wants to be enslaved, they were free to make the choice to be enslaved and that really isn't slavery. That is not the slavery we're talking about and you know it. Now, if someone wants to be eaten, so be it, but that doesn't create a right to eat people who don't want to be eaten. Now, can you prove this person wanted to be eaten or is that a bogus news story? I heard about it at the time but I didn't accept it as truthful.
quote:
Good. Then, I hope you'll found a sort of Sealand with Libertarian friends then, and see ow it works out without forcing us to live under such rule. |
This country was set up with rules which most libertarians can accept aside from a few notable exceptions which have largely been corrected via the amendment process. I'm assuming you don't agree with everything your government is doing so why do you advise us to move away from our homes when you don't move yourself? Yes Spiffor, telling people to love it or leave it is more hypocrisy and wouldn't convince the victims of Mafia extortion that they should accept the immorality they see as moral or move away.
quote:
Of course not, but that would be an emotional statement. |
So you wouldn't like democracy if the majority was out to do you harm. Thanks, that's all I wanted to see.  But why wouldn't it be a rational statement as well? Seems to me a system that forced you into slavery would be immoral based on logic as well as emotion... And you loathe my morals and ideology? Strange, you have alot of atrocities committed under majority rule to justify before passing judgement on my beliefs...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
UR - quote:
Sorry, that's still not going to work. First of all, the contents of said constitution will still be decided by people, a committee perhaps. Now, how would the committee decide when a conflict arises? Catch-22, as you so fond of saying. |
I think I said it once, hardly a fondness  but I did say a constitution based on libertarian principles, not majority rule. As for conflicts, that's life...is any system free of conflicts?
quote:
Secondly, there is no inherent advantage of a republic over a democracy. Even in the supreme court of the land or the legislature, it is still the rule of the majority. |
There is when the republic has a constitution based on libertarian principles. If your point is constitutions can be ignored or subverted, sure, that's why we have our current system. But that would no longer be a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, it might be a "democracy".
quote:
I don't see how your suggestion is better. |
I've pointed out the flaw with democracy, point out the flaw with my suggestion.
Imran - quote:
Have you never heard of the phrase 'selling yourself into slavery'? It isn't simply abducted against your will. Slavery means you are owned entirely by another person. |
That's a euphemism, try using the actual definition of slavery. The notion one can "choose" to be a slave is illogical and certainly not what we've been talking about.
quote:
Why is stopping them justified? Because you don't like it? I guess if you got the power then you can say it is justifed. |
You don't think stopping a murderer is justified? Yes, I don't like it and would stop it if I could. And if I got the power, I'd still say stopping a murderer was justified. What's your point?
quote:
But what if you don't have that power? What if you can't stop them? Then what? |
Then I can't stop them. 
quote:
And what about those people who think that they SHOULD be taxed? |
I'd tell them what I tell rich Democrats who complain about the tax cuts under Bush, they can give more to the government if they want.
quote:
So in calling for taxes they are wishing others be treated as they themselves want to be treated. |
No they aren't, they are asking others be taxed at rates they want, not the rates the others want. If the others demanded a %99 rate on them they'd stop viewing it as a matter of the Golden Rule (if they do now).
quote:
What if these people who wouldn't mind being taxed are in the majority? By calling for taxes they aren't violating the golden rule. |
Yes they are, consider this analogy, a guy rapes a beautiful woman based on the notion he'd want her to rape him. Sorry fella, if you want to rape someone you don't get to decide who rapes you just as the beautiful woman had no choice who raped her. Besides, I'm sure Jesus gave people a little more credit in the intellectual honesty department when he offered up the Golden Rule and wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on figuring out loopholes in what he said.
Telling people they should be forced to pay a tax because you are "willing" to pay the tax means you want to be taxed in return, not at the rate you want, but the rate they want. Throw in "progressive" taxation and you have liberals demanding some people pay more and some pay less...all dictated by the liberals, not the people they are forcing to pay the tax.
quote:
Better than someone who has no concept of the law or its origins . |
Didn't you claim the Nazis never stole from German Jews because what they did was legal? Haven't you argued that stealing and murder didn't occur before government came along with laws to invent these crimes? 
DAMN! Nen just went on the 60 day DL and I have him on something like 8 teams.
Last edited by Berzerker on 29-04-2004 at 11:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kolpo
|
|
"A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get. "
But the chance for that to be created are extremely slim because there is an extreme contradiction in it:
In order to make such dramatical changes do you need A LOT of power, you then need an extreme powerfull despot or an extreme powerfull democratic elected leader who uses that power to make a libertarian state and then end his own power.
It is actually in that way(not in other ways) similar to communism: you need a TON of power to create that type of state, either a libertarian state or a communistic state can't be created without a ton of power. Just to end the democratic principle do you need more power then any US president ever had.
Now even imagine if you actually can create such a state then shall that state still exists no longer then the majority supports it. Secret police, bans on free expression or weapon possesion are all very anti-libertarian so if the majority revolts againsts your libertarian system is there nothing the system itself can do againsts that.
Quite every state that does not use tools to suppress the majority(Secret police, bans on free expression and free organization) is eventually lead by that majority. Even most despots have to consider the will of the majority somewhat(that is why they have propaganda after all). No single constitution, no single system can survive a succesfull revolt by the majority. That type of revolt can only be stopped by very anti-libertarian means.
Give me a realistic way a libertarian state can be create and how it can survive moments where the majority is againsts that type of state without using anti-libertarian means like a big police force, bans on weapon ownership or bans on free organization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Floyd doesn't believe that, he accepts user fees as legitimate as well as lotteries and I imagine a few other taxes. |
Yes, and there are on a voluntary basis. I know plenty of people who'll want to keep getting protected by the police, but will avoid paying a dime for it if possible. Should they be on their own when mugged, then?
Or does it mean the poor (who can't pay police fees) should be not protected by the police, and be open to robbing and theft, thus impeding on their freedom not to be stolen, or not to be hit?
quote:
I thought your belief system couldn't be imposed on others, now you want it imposed? |
Huh? I was only opposing your claim that nobody enjoys seeing his money go to the State. Since your system seems to require a unanimity of desires, I just showed you my desires aren't the same as yours.
quote:
Did you ask the majority if this was moral? |
Why should you care about the majority? If one person disagrees, then doing something that he disagrees with is impeding on his freedom.
quote:
But you think your system is morally superior to mine, so what's wrong with me thinking my system is morally superior to yours? |
Again, there is nothing wrong in believing your system is superior to the others. There is something really laughable, however, in your belief that you Berzerker (not liberarianism, I am talking about yourself) is the one who is the most fit to decide what is perfectly moral or not. I'm glad to hear God is on this board
quote:
But you said your morality is based on what the majority thinks, that isn't thinking for yourself, it's letting others think for you. |
Not my morality. You are the only one talking about morality. My political system is based on democracy. Yes, that little thing that is about making political decisions wherever common action is called for. This is what this thread is about : democracy as a tool of political action.
This issue has been avoided by your posts altogether until this:
quote:
We do through representative government. |
Finally I get the answer to the question that is of interest in this thread 
So, you prefer representative government, over one-person despotism. Cool. Now, how are decisions taken? Are they taken at majority rule, or at unanimity? Say, the majority of the government says your slaver neighbour deserves to be enslaved in turn, but a minority says he should remain free, but fined. What is the final decision?
quote:
The principle I want for us all is live and let live... If you find that unacceptable, will you leave those of us who like it out of your system where your "principles" are dictated to us? |
I would maybe even lend you money for you to buy a platform petrol and live your happy dream somewhere on the sea
quote:
You missed what I said, human rights derive from "universal" desires. If someone wants to be enslaved, they were free to make the choice to be enslaved and that really isn't slavery. That is not the slavery we're talking about and you know it. Now, if someone wants to be eaten, so be it, but that doesn't create a right to eat people who don't want to be eaten. |
I can only imagine a renowned cannibal: "Yes your honor. He wanted to be eaten, I swear!"
You are either saying the rights vary from person to person, or the rights are universal, and forced upon those who don't like it. For example, since "nobody wants to be killed", should suicide be illegal? After all, the "right to life" (which is one of your natural rights IIUC) is the main reason why thousands of aged people can't enjoy a euthanasia.
quote:
Now, can you prove this person wanted to be eaten or is that a bogus news story? I heard about it at the time but I didn't accept it as truthful. |
I wasn't there, but the court considered there was enough evidence of the man wanting to be eaten link.
quote:
This country was set up with rules which most libertarians can accept aside from a few notable exceptions which have largely been corrected via the amendment process. I'm assuming you don't agree with everything your government is doing so why do you advise us to move away from our homes when you don't move yourself? Yes Spiffor, telling people to love it or leave it is more hypocrisy and wouldn't convince the victims of Mafia extortion that they should accept the immorality they see as moral or move away. |
That's because I believe in democracy as a way to achieve my political aims, and I don't hold democracy for corrupt. I understood you considered your (democratic) country to be morally bankrupt, so I didn't imagine you could hope to change the system from within. If you think you can change the system from within, then go on and continue to live in the US.
quote:
So you wouldn't like democracy if the majority was out to do you harm. Thanks, that's all I wanted to see. But why wouldn't it be a rational statement as well? Seems to me a system that forced you into slavery would be immoral based on logic as well as emotion... And you loathe my morals and ideology? Strange, you have alot of atrocities committed under majority rule to justify before passing judgement on my beliefs... |
1. I exaggerated my loathing of your belief only to show you not everyone agrees with you, people can even be strongly against what you propose. Since you belong to a fringe group that is so far not dangerous at all for our stable systems, I am not as emotional as I intended to look.
2. There are an infinity of atrocities committed under "rule" at all, whether majority, minority, monopersonal, sepotic etc. rule.
I am defending democracy not like some sort of epitome of what is good and great, but as the best political system that has been devised so far. You may be surprised, but every modern democracy lays out a set of unchangeable freedoms just like your constitution does (although the freedoms aren't entirely identical). But the question I continue to ask is who decided these laws. Who decided to protect these freedoms? Who manages the political matters in the limitations that have been drawn in the political system itself?
This is the question asked in this thread. This thread is not about the merits and flaws of a libertarian morality, it is about the political process: how to take decisions that, in their nature, will affect other people? Who takes these decisions?
You were talking about a representative government. Unless it votes at the unanimity rule, this looks frighteningly similar to any modern-day democracy, where a constitution lays out the rights on which the State cannot impede, and where the majority takes decisions in that frame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
try using the actual definition of slavery |
I am:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
Looking at the definition, you can choose to be a slave. A slave is simply one bound to someone else.
quote:
You don't think stopping a murderer is justified? |
It depends. Is the 'murder' of some bloodthirsty dictator? That's my point, justification depends on who's in charge and what rules are in place.
quote:
No they aren't, they are asking others be taxed at rates they want, not the rates the others want. If the others demanded a %99 rate on them they'd stop viewing it as a matter of the Golden Rule (if they do now). |
Isn't the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you"? What if these people want to tax people at a rate which they would want to be taxed at as well? If your objection is if they set the rate for others, others should set the rate for them, then that is what democracy is about, isn't it? They believe that they should be taxed as well as others and will accept that which those they want to tax will place upon them. That seems to satisfy the Golden Rule and I don't see any way it doesn't.
Your rape analogy is flawed because the rapist would have to be sibject to rape by another man. It isn't do until others as you would want that person to do unto you. It applies to the entire world.
quote:
Didn't you claim the Nazis never stole from German Jews because what they did was legal? Haven't you argued that stealing and murder didn't occur before government came along with laws to invent these crimes? |
Yes, and yes. Anyone who knows the law knows that both are true.... except I didn't argue about stealing. Stealing is simply taking something without permission. Murder is unlawful killing, ie, requires a law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I think I said it once, hardly a fondness but I did say a constitution based on libertarian principles, not majority rule. As for conflicts, that's life...is any system free of conflicts? |
The problems are:
1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right?
2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
There is when the republic has a constitution based on libertarian principles. If your point is constitutions can be ignored or subverted, sure, that's why we have our current system. But that would no longer be a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, it might be a "democracy". |
My point was, at almost any point, majority rule is an inevitable fact. The supreme court thing was just an example.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I've pointed out the flaw with democracy, point out the flaw with my suggestion. |
That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right?
|
For me, the issue isn't one of morality, it is of logical consistency, and libertarian principles are more consistent than communism in my opinion.
quote:
2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one.
|
I disagree. Where things are open to interpretation, all you need is a means of preventing people from forcing their arbitrary interpretations upon each other, a consensus is probably the worse thing that could happen in that case. I of course, differentiate between civil and political rights.
quote:
That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral.
|
Firstly, I do not believe democracy to be necessarily libertarian, I am not a democracy advocate. And the proper term would be amoral, since libertarianism seems to imply room for individual morality, in an emotive or prescriptive sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
And how is this relevant? It is relevant to your position since you derive your morality from the majority which has committed such atrocities. C'mon Spiffor, would you really have concluded slavery was moral if you lived in a country where the majority said it was moral? Of course not, so why claim your morality is based on what the majority thinks? |
I never claimed my morality came from what most people think. Actually, I have never talked about "morality" in this thread except when replying to you. The topic of interest here is not morality, it is the political system. I base my political system (where the decisions are taken, by whom, with what rpocesses) on majority rule. My own morality is something I built with the prejudices ingrained since my birth, plus my own reflexions - it has nothing to do with the political system.
quote:
it means if you introduce other factors into situations, what we want and don't want can change. |
And so it means the golden rule cannot be applied universally.
Besides, if I understand the Golden Rule, it is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you". This means, if I don't mind something "bad" (as in, considered bad by most people) to happen to me, I should be allowed to do them?
For example, it is documented that a significant portion of molested children turn pedophiles themselves later on, because they grew up to think pedophilia is normal, or even because they enjoyed it. Since they don't mind child molestation when it happens to them, should it be ok for them to molest children?
Another example: some people fantisasize on being raped, for the thrill of feeling powerless in the hands of an unknown brute. Does it means it is ok for these people to rape others too?
My point is that desires can change (as you put it yourself), and that people may even wish things the immense majority of us consider immoral. Desires are not purely universal, and as such, a principle based on universal desires is bound to be empty. Now, if you are talking about near-universal principles, there is a validity to it. Unfortunately, this is majority rule: you deprive the molested child of its freedom of sexual life*; you deprive the rape-fantasizer of its freedom of satisfying his fantasy...
(*it happened to a friend of a friend. His family hosted a messed up little girl who has been repeatedly raped by her family. Despite being underaged, she lusted for sex, and tried to approach this friend's friend into her bed - because of our anti-pedophilia laws, she was frustrated and couldn't exert her freedom of having sex with adults).
quote:
Morality enters the picture, where the moral authority to make decisions resides. |
Again, who gets to decide who is the moral authority? Who is the person / the people being the moral authority? (I thought you believe you were the obvious choice - I retract my snide comments if you don't believe you are the God of morality) How is the selection of this moral authority performed? How are decisions taken by this moral authority, should there be several people in it?
Unanimity rule? Of majority rule?
quote:
You mean everyone must agree with your belief system before you'll want it applied? BS. |
Nope. I don't expect everyone to agree with my system, far from it. However, should my system be preferred by the majority of voters one day (we can dream), I expect everybody in my democratic country to agree with the fact this policy is performed, even if they oppose the policy itself. That's called "legitimacy": to accept the wielder of the power, despite opposing him. As much as I hate Chirac, he is a legitimate president, and it wouldn't have been normal for my candidate to win.
quote:
Does that mean you think there is another known system out there superior to yours but which you reject anyways? Ri...ight. |
No, but I don't believe to be the savior of the world. I don't think Spiffor is the best person that could ever lead the world (although Spifforism is obviously the best system )
quote:
Is that crap on the property of the dog owner? If so, too bad, look where you're walking. If it's on someone else's property, even public property, then the owners of that property get to decide if the dog can poop there. |
Let's say it's on the streets, a public property. How does the public property decides on the issue? By majority rule?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Spiffor - quote:
Yes, and there are on a voluntary basis. I know plenty of people who'll want to keep getting protected by the police, but will avoid paying a dime for it if possible. Should they be on their own when mugged, then? Or does it mean the poor (who can't pay police fees) should be not protected by the police, and be open to robbing and theft, thus impeding on their freedom not to be stolen, or not to be hit? |
Why can't the poor afford police protection? They could afford alot more if y'all weren't taxing them in the name of helping them. And it would be up to those who do pay for the police to decide which free riders should be allowed to free ride. But if you want to debate Floyd's views, PM him... He's better qualified than me...
quote:
Huh? I was only opposing your claim that nobody enjoys seeing his money go to the State. Since your system seems to require a unanimity of desires, I just showed you my desires aren't the same as yours. |
I never said there aren't people who don't enjoy seeing their money go the state, but you said the application of your beliefs required unanimity when in fact you don't require this.
quote:
Why should you care about the majority? If one person disagrees, then doing something that he disagrees with is impeding on his freedom. |
You didn't answer my question, and I only care about what the majority wants when the majority has the moral authority to decide, i.e., when property is "communal" and preserving our freedom.
quote:
Again, there is nothing wrong in believing your system is superior to the others. There is something really laughable, however, in your belief that you Berzerker (not liberarianism, I am talking about yourself) is the one who is the most fit to decide what is perfectly moral or not. I'm glad to hear God is on this board |
You think the system you believe in is the best and I think mine is the best, and I didn't invent the Golden Rule which is the basis for my system, Jesus did, and to many, he is God.
quote:
Not my morality. You are the only one talking about morality. |
Shall I quote you? Here is what you said when I asked where you got your morality:
quote:
I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people |
And when I asked if you'd prefer morality via the majority you said "definitely".
So you're backtracking again, now you base your morality on your own belief system, not the majority. But you criticise me for thinking my views of morality are superior to yours and the majority when you think your own are superior to mine and the majority. Are you going to say your morality comes from what the majority thinks again?
quote:
My political system is based on democracy. Yes, that little thing that is about making political decisions wherever common action is called for. This is what this thread is about : democracy as a tool of political action.
This issue has been avoided by your posts altogether until this: |
I'm avoiding your point?  Calling the kettle black once again I see, but the kettle isn't black this time.
quote:
Finally I get the answer to the question that is of interest in this thread |
I responded to your question before that, and this thread is about the nature of democracy, not the nature of libertarianism. I've offered my critique of democracy and you want to debate libertarianism.
quote:
So, you prefer representative government, over one-person despotism. Cool. |
Geez, I said early on that my system is a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles and you think I've been avoiding your question?
quote:
Now, how are decisions taken? Are they taken at majority rule, or at unanimity? |
Unlike you, I don't need unanimity (or did you flip flop on that?). The decisions the majority can make are limited to communal matters and protecting our freedom.
quote:
Say, the majority of the government says your slaver neighbour deserves to be enslaved in turn, but a minority says he should remain free, but fined. What is the final decision? |
Being jailed for such a crime is not slavery. I already answered who has the authority to decide crime and punishment.
quote:
I would maybe even lend you money for you to buy a platform petrol and live your happy dream somewhere on the sea |
Let me know when the check is in the mail, then one day I can start selling you oil. Looks like it still hasn't sunk in, but telling people to love it or leave is hypocritical and ironically it was conservatives who use to tell liberals they can leave if they don't like it.
quote:
I can only imagine a renowned cannibal: "Yes your honor. He wanted to be eaten, I swear!" |
And if he did want to be eaten, what business is it of yours?
quote:
You are either saying the rights vary from person to person, or the rights are universal, and forced upon those who don't like it. For example, since "nobody wants to be killed", should suicide be illegal? After all, the "right to life" (which is one of your natural rights IIUC) is the main reason why thousands of aged people can't enjoy a euthanasia. |
Please don't tell me what I think, you have enough difficulty maintaining one position. No one is forcing a right upon you, if you don't want to exercise a right, then don't. And now you're confusing murder with suicide? They aren't the same... Suicide should be legal because the individual committing suicide has the moral authority to decide their fate, the murderer and the majority lacks that authority. So, what happens when your majority rule outlaws suicide? Kinda pointless if the person is successful, but what if they aren't?
quote:
I wasn't there, but the court considered there was enough evidence of the man wanting to be eaten link. |
Then the court should have concerned itself only with determining if this was the man's wish. But according to that link, the court didn't say there was enough evidence the man wanted to be eaten, that was the testimony of the cannibal. So much for your "some guy wanted to be eaten" claim. Any link to all these people who want to be enslaved?
quote:
That's because I believe in democracy as a way to achieve my political aims, and I don't hold democracy for corrupt. I understood you considered your (democratic) country to be morally bankrupt, so I didn't imagine you could hope to change the system from within. If you think you can change the system from within, then go on and continue to live in the US. |
Oh great, more advice... Who asked? Seriously, who asked you? Your "pithy" response, essentially, to love it or leave it, is hypocritical and immature and what I'd expect from a right wing redneck.
quote:
1. I exaggerated my loathing of your belief only to show you not everyone agrees with you, people can even be strongly against what you propose. Since you belong to a fringe group that is so far not dangerous at all for our stable systems, I am not as emotional as I intended to look. |
Gee thanks, I would have never known that there are people who disagree with me if not for your exaggeration. Yes, you're quite emotional, I've noticed how liberals rely alot on emotions, kind of feminine don't you think?
quote:
2. There are an infinity of atrocities committed under "rule" at all, whether majority, minority, monopersonal, sepotic etc. rule. |
Don't try to stick libertarians with the atrocities committed under majority rule, that is illogical and hardly a defense of majority rule. You can't defend these atrocities so you ignore them with "all systems commit atrocities", but if a system is libertarian, the only "atrocity" is that liberals don't get to throw their weight around while hiding behind the state.
quote:
I am defending democracy not like some sort of epitome of what is good and great, but as the best political system that has been devised so far. |
Which you think is superior to all the rest, HMM...
quote:
You may be surprised, but every modern democracy lays out a set of unchangeable freedoms just like your constitution does (although the freedoms aren't entirely identical). |
Where did you get that nonsense? People had the freedom to ingest alcohol prior to the 1920's but where did that freedom go for ~13 years? People had the freedom to smoke pot for ~150 years but where did that freedom go? And even freedoms specifically mentioned in the Constitution are under attack by the majority, just ask Rastafarians. Yeah, freedoms are unchanging under majority rule.
quote:
But the question I continue to ask is who decided these laws. Who decided to protect these freedoms? Who manages the political matters in the limitations that have been drawn in the political system itself? |
Is this where you accuse me again of avoiding a question I've already adressed?
quote:
This is the question asked in this thread. This thread is not about the merits and flaws of a libertarian morality, it is about the political process: how to take decisions that, in their nature, will affect other people? Who takes these decisions? |
Many questions have been asked in this thread, and you turned it into a thread about the merits of libertarianism.
quote:
You were talking about a representative government. Unless it votes at the unanimity rule, this looks frighteningly similar to any modern-day democracy, where a constitution lays out the rights on which the State cannot impede, and where the majority takes decisions in that frame. |
What is the effective difference between a democracy and despotism? The number of people dictating what others can or cannot do. Freightening, huh? Representative government is just a means for making decisions, it neither implies democracy or libertarianism - the difference between these are that in the former the majority rules and your platitudes about protecting individual freedom ignores that the same people who rule get to decide what if any freedoms the minority shall be granted. The primary problem with the latter is that no writing on a piece of paper can protect freedoms and voters will simply elect people to do away with those politically incorrect freedoms, i.e., it'll become a democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Imran - quote:
I am:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the
property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
Looking at the definition, you can choose to be a slave. A slave is simply one bound to someone else. |
Are you suggesting if you choose to work for someone you are a slave? I don't see the word "choose" in there, do you? Get off it, Imran, you're heading down the communist path to "capitalism is slavery". Slavery is the forcible taking of one's labor, that is the definition we've been using in this thread, and that is the definition people think of when the word slavery is mentioned (aside from left wingers in a political debate intent on abusing vocabulary).
quote:
It depends. Is the 'murder' of some bloodthirsty dictator? That's my point, justification depends on who's in charge and what rules are in place. |
No, justification depends on morality regardless of who is in charge or who makes the rules, and it wouldn't be murder to kill a bloodthirsty dictator, that would be self-defense or defense of those whose blood is being spilled by the dictator, i.e., justifiable homicide.
quote:
Isn't the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you"? What if these people want to tax people at a rate which they would want to be taxed at as well? |
First, they don't, they call the disparity in treatment "progressive taxation". Second, if I want you taxed based on the proposition I want to be taxed, I'm the one deciding the rate, not the people I want taxed. The Golden Rule, albeit in the perverted form you propose, would mean they get to decide what I am taxed just as I decided what they should be taxed.
quote:
If your objection is if they set the rate for others, others should set the rate for them, then that is what democracy is about, isn't it? |
But not what the Golden Rule is about (assuming your version of the GR allows for such a thing, it doesn't). A masochist who likes being subjected to pain is not following the GR if they inflict pain on others based on the willingness, even desire, to also be subject to pain. Give Jesus a little credit, he wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on finding ridiculous loopholes in what he said.
quote:
They believe that they should be taxed as well as others and will accept that which those they want to tax will place upon them. That seems to satisfy the Golden Rule and I don't see any way it doesn't. |
Only a lawyer wanna be would come up with that. So, if I'm a liberal who wants the "rich" taxed at %70 and they want me taxed at %99, are you suggesting I'd accept that as the GR? Nope... If you want a flat %10 tax on everyone, is your interpretation of the GR being followed if some communist wants you to pay a %100 tax?
quote:
Your rape analogy is flawed because the rapist would have to be sibject to rape by another man. It isn't do until others as you would want that person to do unto you. It applies to the entire world. |
My analogy had the rapist being raped in turn by a big hairy guy named Bubba. The beautiful woman didn't get to decide to be raped by the rapist, so why would the rapist get to choose who rapes him? That of course ignores what Jesus was talking about, and it sure wasn't an attempt to justify rape.
quote:
Yes, and yes. Anyone who knows the law knows that both are true.... except I didn't argue about stealing. Stealing is simply taking something without permission. Murder is unlawful killing, ie, requires a law. |
Nonono Imram, that definition of stealing was offered by me when we had that debate, not you. You argued it wasn't stealing because it was legal. As for murder, we disagree, you think law was invented by government and therefore murder was invented by government while I believe that natural law, i.e., morality, preceded government and that the government of the Founders was based on the recognition of this pre-existing natural law, i.e., murder is as old as man. When you accuse me of ignorance wrt the origin of law you are accusing the Founding Fathers of the same thing because they believed in a natural law that was meant to be protected by government, not invented by it. And if the law exists to serve justice (do you agree?) then murder existed before government because justice existed before government. Laws against murder in just societies emanate from earlier concepts of justice and murder was the unjustified and malicious taking of another's life...
UR - quote:
The problems are:
1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right? |
Why is that a problem? Do you believe murder is more moral than not murdering? If not, why? Answer that and we can start down the path of logic to show why property is a moral concept. A "right" is a moral or just claim to act that must meet the definition of freedom, owning property meets that definition, stealing it (legally or not) doesn't.
quote:
2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one. |
Once a principle changes due to differing interpretations, it ceases being a principle. That's why principles are held by individuals...
quote:
That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral. |
Easier said than proven, I've shown why democracy is immoral, you've shown an inability to prove your assertion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Kolpo - quote:
But the chance for that to be created are extremely slim because there is an extreme contradiction in it: |
"Extreme" contradictions don't make the formation of governments slim, consider the extreme contradiction of slavery and the creation of a US government supposedly devoted to freedom.
quote:
In order to make such dramatical changes do you need A LOT of power, you then need an extreme powerfull despot or an extreme powerfull democratic elected leader who uses that power to make a libertarian state and then end his own power. |
For thousands of years man lived without such autocratic governments. True, once a government obtains such power it's difficult to get it to relinquish that power, as Jefferson said, it is the tendency for government to grow and liberty to give way. But we're talking about moral systems, not the easiest systems to create or impose.
quote:
It is actually in that way(not in other ways) similar to communism: you need a TON of power to create that type of state, either a libertarian state or a communistic state can't be created without a ton of power. Just to end the democratic principle do you need more power then any US president ever had. |
Aside from slavery and a few other things, the newly formed US government was libertarian, much moreso than any other contemporary aside from the many smaller tribal systems around the world. But that US government did place more power in the hands of a president than had been in existence during the Articles of Confederation and the years prior to the Constitution.
quote:
Now even imagine if you actually can create such a state then shall that state still exists no longer then the majority supports it. Secret police, bans on free expression or weapon possesion are all very anti-libertarian so if the majority revolts againsts your libertarian system is there nothing the system itself can do againsts that. |
That's true, and that's why democracy is an immoral system like any other autocratic system. You're explaining what is rather than what should be wrt morality.
quote:
That type of revolt can only be stopped by very anti-libertarian means. |
But if a majority seeks to overthrow a libertarian system, it wouldn't be anti-libertarian to stop the rebellion, it would be self-defense by the minority who are the target of the majority since the minority has done nothing to that majority. That would be like trying to kill people who leave you alone because you hate your freedom.
quote:
Give me a realistic way a libertarian state can be create and how it can survive moments where the majority is againsts that type of state without using anti-libertarian means like a big police force, bans on weapon ownership or bans on free organization. |
A large group of libertarians move to a place without a government and prior owners and create their own system or to a state where they use the existing system to elect their own. But even once that system is created or elected there are no guarantees it will last since a future majority may vote in a different system. But this thread is about democracy and it's efficacy, not how to create a libertarian system or your perceived contradictions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I never said there aren't people who don't enjoy seeing their money go the state, but you said the application of your beliefs required unanimity when in fact you don't require this. |
And you have trouble understanding, I see.
I never claimed my beliefs should be universally shared. I claimed that for my beliefs to be applied, their application should be deemed legitimate by the people. I disagree with the current policies of France, but the voters have spoken (and made a bad mistake), and as such it is normal we end up with our crap government. I oppose pretty much every policy coming out of my government, but I don't oppose the right they have to make them. That's the difference between agreement with a decision, and considering a decision legitimate.
quote:
You didn't answer my question, and I only care about what the majority wants when the majority has the moral authority to decide, i.e., when property is "communal" and preserving our freedom. |
"Preserving our freedom" is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide the definition of it?
quote:
Shall I quote you? Here is what you said when I asked where you got your morality: |
Well, my bad, I was thinking about the political system. Yes, I way prefer the political system I live in coming from the majority of the people, rather than from Berzerker.
quote:
So you're backtracking again, now you base your morality on your own belief system, not the majority. But you criticise me for thinking my views of morality are superior to yours and the majority when you think your own are superior to mine and the majority. Are you going to say your morality comes from what the majority thinks again? |
If I ever said so, it was by mistake (don't forget it was about 5 to 6 am when I wrote this). My morality cames from the prjudices that have been ingrained since birth + my own reflexions over them. The political system I live in, I prefer it to come from the majority of the people instead of your decisions alone.
quote:
Geez, I said early on that my system is a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles and you think I've been avoiding your question? |
"Constitutional Republic" doesn't necessarily imply majority rule. It may very well imply unanimity rule, extended majority rule, or whatever. It was the question of majority rule I found of interest. And if I understand you correctly, you consider majority rule to be the preferable one wherever public action is warranted.
quote:
Being jailed for such a crime is not slavery. I already answered who has the authority to decide crime and punishment. |
Yes, an obscure "moral authority", on whose working I know nothing about. Are they elected, or somehow chosen among the most moral people? Do they decide by majority rule inside their own 'court', or what? If these people are elected, or if they decide the fate of people (convicts, even), they're basically deciding the fate of someone through majority rule.
quote:
Let me know when the check is in the mail, then one day I can start selling you oil. Looks like it still hasn't sunk in, but telling people to love it or leave is hypocritical and ironically it was conservatives who use to tell liberals they can leave if they don't like it. |
Again, I thought you considered your system bankrupt beyond repair, and since you saw the principle of "opt-out" in a positive fashion...
quote:
And if he did want to be eaten, what business is it of yours? |
None. But if your libertarian country has laws preventing cannibalism (which makes sens for about 99.999999999% of the population), it will crack down on the cannibal just like Germany.
quote:
No one is forcing a right upon you, if you don't want to exercise a right, then don't. And now you're confusing murder with suicide? They aren't the same... Suicide should be legal because the individual committing suicide has the moral authority to decide their fate, the murderer and the majority lacks that authority. So, what happens when your majority rule outlaws suicide? Kinda pointless if the person is successful, but what if they aren't? |
Don't get me wrong, I consider anti-suicide laws to be completely stupid, and I'm a staunch proponent of euthanasia. However, because of the "right to life", it is strictly forbidden to assist someone in the euthanasia (and hence the most crippled see their freedom of being euthanasied impeded upon). And the "right to life" makes sense, in that any killer could claim it was a consentent kill - it's not like the victim can give an opposing account should the killer lie
quote:
Any link to all these people who want to be enslaved? |
I never claimed there were many, at the opposite. I just claimed there were a very few people wishing enslavement, and this alone stops making the will to freedom universal - just extremely majoritarian. And who are you to decide on impeding on the freedom to be enslaved, to be raped, or to be child-molested? 
quote:
Don't try to stick libertarians with the atrocities committed under majority rule, that is illogical and hardly a defense of majority rule. You can't defend these atrocities so you ignore them with "all systems commit atrocities" |
I don't ignore them, I just feel the debate is absurd as long as we acknowledge the need of a political system, which we do.
quote:
but if a system is libertarian, the only "atrocity" is that liberals don't get to throw their weight around while hiding behind the state. |
Letting the poor die in the streets in winter, letting the weak be exploited by the strong, if they don't want to starve, letting the ill die, letting the widows and orphans on the gutter, etc. Those are atrocities too. The only difference is that they aren't performed by common action, but by common inaction 
quote:
Where did you get that nonsense? People had the freedom to ingest alcohol prior to the 1920's but where did that freedom go for ~13 years? People had the freedom to smoke pot for ~150 years but where did that freedom go? And even freedoms specifically mentioned in the Constitution are under attack by the majority, just ask Rastafarians. Yeah, freedoms are unchanging under majority rule. |
The constitutions of every modern democracy outline a basic set of freedom, which cannot be countered by majority rule. The Germans are extremely stringent un this regard, since their articles stating the basic freedoms the Germans enjoy cannot be amended at all (and before you say "nazi Germany", know this constitution was adopted right after WW2, precisely with the memory of nazi germany in mind).
Every modern democracy has a set of freedom that is protected. I hardly see a difference with your system, except that you wish the Golden Rule to be added, and to be set in stone.
quote:
What is the effective difference between a democracy and despotism? The number of people dictating what others can or cannot do. Freightening, huh? Representative government is just a means for making decisions, it neither implies democracy or libertarianism - the difference between these are that in the former the majority rules and your platitudes about protecting individual freedom ignores that the same people who rule get to decide what if any freedoms the minority shall be granted. The primary problem with the latter is that no writing on a piece of paper can protect freedoms and voters will simply elect people to do away with those politically incorrect freedoms, i.e., it'll become a democracy. |
Maybe that's because I'm tired, but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. From what I get, you are saying the main difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is: in a democracy, the majority decides what freedoms are protected. Did I get this right?
And in libertarianism, who is that? Who decides that the Golden Rule is the one that should apply, if not the majority of the population? And if it is the majority that has decided it, what is the difference between democracy and libertarianism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Spiffor - quote:
I never claimed my morality came from what most people think. Actually, I have never talked about "morality" in this thread except when replying to you. The topic of interest here is not morality, it is the political system. I base my political system (where the decisions are taken, by whom, with what rpocesses) on majority rule. My own morality is something I built with the prejudices ingrained since my birth, plus my own reflexions - it has nothing to do with the political system. |
I quoted you to the contrary in my last post, but since you arrived at your morality based on your views, and assuming you consider your morality superior to others, how are you any different than me when I've done the same thing (leaving aside the obvious reality that we both change our views when confronted with better morals)? And I never said I was the sole arbiter of all morality, that was your snide and comment.
quote:
And so it means the golden rule cannot be applied universally. |
Yes it can, no one wants to be murdered. You try to add caveats to that to dismiss the obvious, but the fact situtations can change altering what we want and don't want doesn't change the fact no one wants to be murdered without your caveats.
quote:
Besides, if I understand the Golden Rule, it is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you". This means, if I don't mind something "bad" (as in, considered bad by most people) to happen to me, I should be allowed to do them? |
No, the GR is, to quote Ben Kenobi, "pro-active". "Do unto others as"... not "don't do to others"... And inspite of Imran's attempts to find loopholes, Jesus was giving his audience enough credit to view his words with some common sense.
quote:
For example, it is documented that a significant portion of molested children turn pedophiles themselves later on, because they grew up to think pedophilia is normal, or even because they enjoyed it. Since they don't mind child molestation when it happens to them, should it be ok for them to molest children? |
Oh well, you're intent on following in Imran's footsteps.
Can you identify pedophiles who think it's okay to molest children? Can you find children who enjoyed the experience?
quote:
Another example: some people fantisasize on being raped, for the thrill of feeling powerless in the hands of an unknown brute. Does it means it is ok for these people to rape others too? |
Only if you want to think Jesus was an imbecile. Frankly, I'm tired of this aspect of the debate, you guys are intent on finding absurd loopholes in what Jesus said and it's just plain juvenile. Do these people who fantasize about being raped really believe their fantasy means they also believe it's okay to rape other people? Nah, that's just convenient speculation.
quote:
My point is that desires can change (as you put it yourself), and that people may even wish things the immense majority of us consider immoral. Desires are not purely universal, and as such, a principle based on universal desires is bound to be empty. |
Some desires are universal, and these are the ones upon which morality and human rights derive and upon which a system of morality can be built.
quote:
Now, if you are talking about near-universal principles, there is a validity to it. Unfortunately, this is majority rule: you deprive the molested child of its freedom of sexual life*; you deprive the rape-fantasizer of its freedom of satisfying his fantasy... |
I'm talking about universal desires, and instead of acknowledging that these exist, you have to introduce caveats to show why a desire not to be murdered is not universal. The desire is universal, show me someone who wants to be murdered without introducing incentives to be murdered. You can't...
quote:
(*it happened to a friend of a friend. His family hosted a messed up little girl who has been repeatedly raped by her family. Despite being underaged, she lusted for sex, and tried to approach this friend's friend into her bed - because of our anti-pedophilia laws, she was frustrated and couldn't exert her freedom of having sex with adults). |
Age of consent factors into freedom, but you're once again introducing a caveat - she was the victim of rape.
Did she want to be raped? Did she believe it was okay to rape because she was raped? What's the point of that story?
quote:
Again, who gets to decide who is the moral authority? Who is the person / the people being the moral authority? |
Why add the word "again" into that? Have you asked this before? Not that I can recall... It depends on ownership, all morality starts with that question. When property is communal in nature, i.e., owned by more than 2 people (co-owners who have a different contract), then the majority has the moral authority unless prior contract obligations says otherwise. When property is owned by one person, that person has the moral authority. If that person was murdered, their moral authority passes onto those who would have defended them if possible.
quote:
(I thought you believe you were the obvious choice - I retract my snide comments if you don't believe you are the God of morality) |
You retract here and start making the same snide comments later. Obviously not a man of his word.
quote:
How is the selection of this moral authority performed? How are decisions taken by this moral authority, should there be several people in it?
Unanimity rule? Of majority rule? |
When I asked you this you said unanimity and then changed it to majority which is where I assume it was to start with. See above...
quote:
Nope. I don't expect everyone to agree with my system, far from it. However, should my system be preferred by the majority of voters one day (we can dream), I expect everybody in my democratic country to agree with the fact this policy is performed, even if they oppose the policy itself. That's called "legitimacy": to accept the wielder of the power, despite opposing him. |
I didn't ask if you expected everyone to agree, you said your system required unaminity. But why is majority rule "legitimate"? Was it legitimate for the majority to incarcerate Japanese Americans during WWII? Is slavery legitimate if the majority says so? Genocide? As Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" asked when meeting with his neighbors to discuss whether or not to join the American Revolution, "why trade 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" You obviously believe despotism is the most moral system as long as the despots outnumber the victims, but how that constitutes legitimacy remains in doubt.
quote:
No, but I don't believe to be the savior of the world. I don't think Spiffor is the best person that could ever lead the world (although Spifforism is obviously the best system ) |
See above wrt retractions of snide comments. Why is putting forth what I believe to be moral something to ridicule when you put forth what you believe to be moral? The stench of your hypocrisy would repel a starving vulture.
quote:
Let's say it's on the streets, a public property. How does the public property decides on the issue? By majority rule? |
Already answered. Please read my responses before repeating questions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Are you suggesting if you choose to work for someone you are a slave? |
NO! I'm saying you can CHOOSE to be a slave. You can say that I will become your slave if you provide for my family and make sure they have a good life.
I think a vast majority of people would consider you a slave if your life is totally controled by another.
quote:
justification depends on morality regardless of who is in charge or who makes the rules |
Morality depends on who is in charge / who makes the rules.
quote:
First, they don't, they call the disparity in treatment "progressive taxation". |
And if they are the Top 1% then they agree to be taxed much more. What's the problem?
quote:
A masochist who likes being subjected to pain is not following the GR if they inflict pain on others based on the willingness, even desire, to also be subject to pain. Give Jesus a little credit, he wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on finding ridiculous loopholes in what he said. |
Then Jesus should have been more careful with his words. For being the 'son of God' he was not very careful about things . Do unto others as you would have done unto you DOES justify the masochist. Which proves having the Golden Rule as a justification for rights is utterly silly and foolish.
Besides you are being naive if you think only lawyer find loopholes and exploit them. Obviously you've never been college (where I've find the most proclivity for finding loopholes in rules)
quote:
You argued it wasn't stealing because it was legal. |
AHH! That's different. Sorry, I was thinking about a pre-government society. Nevermind then. Yes, if the law allows it, then it isn't stealing. It's called eminent domain instead (ie, the government has the right to take it and since you live in that society you've given the government permission... like a social contract thing).
quote:
if the law exists to serve justice (do you agree?) then murder existed before government because justice existed before government. |
I don't agree. The law exists to serve whatever purpose those in power assert. They sometimes may dress it up as 'justice', but that term is highly subjective and can be molded.
Besides, once again, murder is unlawful killing. That's why warfare isn't murder and has never really been treated as such (even by the aggressor... they are charged with aggression but not external murder).
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 30-04-2004 at 11:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Spiffor - Before getting to your most recent post, you deny there are universal desires, how do you explain this:
quote:
(for the record, I have absolutely no problem with sodomy - I am precisely comparing something that we all agree should be outlawed with something we all agree should be allowed) |
Those are your words and certainly is a universal desire...
quote:
And you have trouble understanding, I see. |
Quite possible inspite of your proclamations regarding my alleged divinity.
quote:
I never claimed my beliefs should be universally shared. I claimed that for my beliefs to be applied, their application should be deemed legitimate by the people. |
How does that mean your beliefs don't require unanimity? Applied, application, doesn't matter, you still said you needed everyone to agree that your system is legitimate.
quote:
I disagree with the current policies of France, but the voters have spoken (and made a bad mistake), and as such it is normal we end up with our crap government. I oppose pretty much every policy coming out of my government |
Is this where I tell you to leave?
quote:
but I don't oppose the right they have to make them. That's the difference between agreement with a decision, and considering a decision legitimate. |
What if your government wanted to enslave you and your family? Would that be a legitimate decision?
quote:
"Preserving our freedom" is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide the definition of it? |
Not vague at all, I already gave you the short definition of freedom. The problem with any system is that the state will need to infringe upon our freedom in order to preserve the remaining freedom even if taxes were entirely non-coercive. A libertarian system seeks to keep the intrusion minimal while a democracy doesn't.
quote:
Well, my bad, I was thinking about the political system. Yes, I way prefer the political system I live in coming from the majority of the people, rather than from Berzerker. |
Obviously, but that wasn't what I asked. Do you prefer the majority's morality to your own?
quote:
If I ever said so, it was by mistake (don't forget it was about 5 to 6 am when I wrote this). |
Understood.
quote:
My morality cames from the prjudices that have been ingrained since birth + my own reflexions over them. The political system I live in, I prefer it to come from the majority of the people instead of your decisions alone. |
But do you prefer majority rule with all the evil it can do to a system based on your morality? I'm not asking about the feasibility of empowering your system, just which provides the greater morality. If you prefer your own morality, then why criticise me for believing my morality is better than majority rule?
quote:
"Constitutional Republic" doesn't necessarily imply majority rule. It may very well imply unanimity rule, extended majority rule, or whatever. It was the question of majority rule I found of interest. And if I understand you correctly, you consider majority rule to be the preferable one wherever public action is warranted. |
True, but a constitutional republic does imply representative government so I have answered that question. And yes, when more than 2 people own a piece of property, majority rule is very likely the most morally expedient method for decision making wrt that property.
quote:
Yes, an obscure "moral authority", on whose working I know nothing about. Are they elected, or somehow chosen among the most moral people? Do they decide by majority rule inside their own 'court', or what? If these people are elected, or if they decide the fate of people (convicts, even), they're basically deciding the fate of someone through majority rule. |
It's only obscure because you haven't taken the time to consider what ownership means and what it entails wrt moral authority (not meant as an insult). It all starts with ownership and that beginning creates the moral foundation by which a path of logic can be followed on just about every situation that can arise. Courts, i.e., juries usually require unaminity to take away the accused' freedom, some want to make it majority rule, some want super majorities. This is all irrelevant to where the moral authority resides... If I commit murder, then the victim's moral authority of self-defense transforms into someone else's moral authority for retribution. With a functioning and just state, that moral authority transfers to the representative government. But it all begins with the victim's moral authority of self-defense, that's why "victimless crimes" are an abomination to libertarianism and my moral outlook.
quote:
Again, I thought you considered your system bankrupt beyond repair, and since you saw the principle of "opt-out" in a positive fashion... |
I do, but all decisions of import involve trade-offs. Do I want to leave family and friends behind? No. Where would I go? There are few if any unclaimed lands so I'll just have to deal with another state which may or may not be any better, etc...
quote:
None. But if your libertarian country has laws preventing cannibalism (which makes sens for about 99.999999999% of the population), it will crack down on the cannibal just like Germany. |
Not if that person really wanted to be eaten after his death, but we have only the word of the cannibal on that. The court should only be concerned with ensuring this person who allegedly wanted to be eaten was fulfilling his wish, no different than someone who committed suicide being buried or cremated. No different than doctor assisted suicide or even consensual euthenasia. If this guy wanted to die, so be it... If he wanted his remains eaten, so what? Where we get into a murky area is with insane people and that's, like I said, murky. Do the insane have the same freedom? We have age of consent laws for a similar reason, some people just don't have the mental capacity to consider the ramifications of their wishes and I don't know how to resolve that problem although I'm inclined to intercede.
quote:
I just claimed there were a very few people wishing enslavement, and this alone stops making the will to freedom universal - just extremely majoritarian. |
You cannot find one person who wants to be enslaved without introducing caveats to create incentives to be enslaved. In the Bible one of the patriarchs agreed to become the servant of the man whose daughter the patriarch wanted to marry. That doesn't mean he wanted to become a servant, he wanted the man's daughter for marriage and trade several years of his life to get her. When I say a desire is universal, I do so without caveats.
quote:
I don't ignore them, I just feel the debate is absurd as long as we acknowledge the need of a political system, which we do. |
But we are debating which system is the most moral.
quote:
Letting the poor die in the streets in winter, letting the weak be exploited by the strong, if they don't want to starve, letting the ill die, letting the widows and orphans on the gutter, etc. Those are atrocities too. The only difference is that they aren't performed by common action, but by common inaction |
And this happened before the income tax? This happened in the 1790's when we had a largely libertarian system? No... this is the Dickensesque picture drawn by the left but ignores that Great Britain was not a libertarian system and hadn't been for eons (if ever).
quote:
The constitutions of every modern democracy outline a basic set of freedom, which cannot be countered by majority rule. The Germans are extremely stringent un this regard, since their articles stating the basic freedoms the Germans enjoy cannot be amended at all (and before you say "nazi Germany", know this constitution was adopted right after WW2, precisely with the memory of nazi germany in mind).
Every modern democracy has a set of freedom that is protected. I hardly see a difference with your system, except that you wish the Golden Rule to be added, and to be set in stone. |
But modern Germany is a mere ~5 decades old, give them time. The US Constitution had explicit protections but ~100 years later the majority had successfully done away with the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment. In the 1870's (I believe) the Supreme Court re-wrote the 1st Amendment turning the "free exercise of religion" into the "free thought of religion". This was done because "Christians" didn't like the Mormons and their religious practice of polygamy and the SCOTUS decision effectively made the US a majority rule system wrt religion.
quote:
Maybe that's because I'm tired, but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. From what I get, you are saying the main difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is: in a democracy, the majority decides what freedoms are protected. Did I get this right? |
Yes.
quote:
And in libertarianism, who is that? Who decides that the Golden Rule is the one that should apply, if not the majority of the population? And if it is the majority that has decided it, what is the difference between democracy and libertarianism? |
It wouldn't matter to me how many people were involved with setting up the system, but once it was set up, I'd want the majority's power restricted to making decisions regarding communal matters. The problem is you can't prevent majority rule with a piece of paper...
Gotta run...cya
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Imran - quote:
NO! I'm saying you can CHOOSE to be a slave. You can say that I will become your slave if you provide for my family and make sure they have a good life. |
That isn't slavery, it's a voluntary trade-off to get what you want.
quote:
I think a vast majority of people would consider you a slave if your life is totally controled by another. |
Not if you volunteered for that control.
quote:
Morality depends on who is in charge / who makes the rules. |
Then genocide is moral if those in power say so? How about if I use that for my sig - "Morality depends on who is in charge" - Imran's defense of genocide
quote:
And if they are the Top 1% then they agree to be taxed much more. What's the problem? |
They are deciding for others, that's the problem. What if they aren't in the top %1?
quote:
Then Jesus should have been more careful with his words. For being the 'son of God' he was not very careful about things . Do unto others as you would have done unto you DOES justify the masochist. Which proves having the Golden Rule as a justification for rights is utterly silly and foolish. |
No, it's utterly silly and foolish to spin what he said, but you're studying to be a lyer so what else is new. Does the masochist really believe people who don't share their fetish want to be subjected to pain? Nah... They understand their fetish is a personal matter, not a universal one.
quote:
AHH! That's different. Sorry, I was thinking about a pre-government society. Nevermind then. Yes, if the law allows it, then it isn't stealing. It's called eminent domain instead (ie, the government has the right to take it and since you live in that society you've given the government permission... like a social contract thing). |
Uh uh Imran, eminent domain allows the US to take someone's land ONLY if the owner is justly compensated, i.e., a forced sale of the property. So you believe government invented stealing, that stealing never occured until some politician invented it? No Imran, laws (just laws) were written to recognise already existing concepts.
quote:
I don't agree. The law exists to serve whatever purpose those in power assert. They sometimes may dress it up as 'justice', but that term is highly subjective and can be molded. |
And that would be an unjust system. Can laws be invented to embrace justice? Obviously they can be invented for the purpose you cite, but that isn't the only reason for laws.
quote:
Besides, once again, murder is unlawful killing. That's why warfare isn't murder and has never really been treated as such (even by the aggressor... they are charged with aggression but not external murder). |
If that's the way it has always been, did government invent war too? Killing in wartime may or may not be murder, it depends of who is getting killed and who started the war. If we launched a sneak attack on China nuking a billion people, I'd call that murder. Again, "murder" has become a legal term to describe a certain act, but government didn't invent the act. The act is as old as man...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
That isn't slavery, it's a voluntary trade-off to get what you want. |
It's still slavery. Read the definition I've provided from the dictionary.
quote:
Then genocide is moral if those in power say so? |
Yep.
quote:
They are deciding for others, that's the problem. |
Well that's ok if others are allowed to 'do unto them' right?
quote:
Does the masochist really believe people who don't share their fetish want to be subjected to pain? Nah... They understand their fetish is a personal matter, not a universal one. |
What does it matter?! He is doing unto them as he wishes to be done!
quote:
Uh uh Imran, eminent domain allows the US to take someone's land ONLY if the owner is justly compensated, i.e., a forced sale of the property. |
And is that the rule in every country in the world? Besides, the US is allowed to take land without compensation for public use purposes.
quote:
And that would be an unjust system. |
To you perhaps... to others, maybe not so much.
quote:
did government invent war too |
Well yes. In order to have war there must be some form of government (tribal or whatever) in order to have some form of organized battle. Otherwise it is just a brawl and not a war at all.
quote:
If we launched a sneak attack on China nuking a billion people, I'd call that murder. |
It's be called aggression under international law, not murder. Because it is recognized that governments can't murder. Under international law (if you accept that law), governments can commit genocide, aggression, etc, but not murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Imran - quote:
It's still slavery. Read the definition I've provided from the dictionary. |
I did read that definition and nowhere did I see the words "choose to be a slave". I did see the word "bound" a few times including in your characterisation of slavery.
I'm not much into sigs but that will do nicely for a while.
quote:
Well that's ok if others are allowed to 'do unto them' right? |
Only if you think the GR means you can legally steal from others as long as you don't mind others doing the same to you, but most people reading the GR understand that wasn't what Jesus was talking about. He wasn't suggesting it's okay to murder people if you don't mind being murdered (you'd know that given the context of his message). But they aren't allowed, ostensibly in a democracy it's the majority who gets to decide who pays what and that means alot of people aren't allowed to set the tax rates of those who get their politicians elected.
quote:
What does it matter?! He is doing unto them as he wishes to be done! |
Does the masochist want pain inflicted on him without limits? Nope... He could get killed or maimed... So these other people the masochist would inflict pain upon get to place limits too, even if their limit is no pain. Tada!!!
quote:
And is that the rule in every country in the world? Besides, the US is allowed to take land without compensation for public use purposes. |
You want to debate every country's eminent domain laws when neither of us know those laws? The US Constitution - the law of the land for what that is worth - says land owners must be provided just compensation. The common practice to get around that law is to merely regulate land use without physically taking it.
quote:
To you perhaps... to others, maybe not so much. |
So who is right? I guess this is where you say, those with the most power.
quote:
Well yes. In order to have war there must be some form of government (tribal or whatever) in order to have some form of organized battle. Otherwise it is just a brawl and not a war at all. |
The general definition of war doesn't require a state or organisation.
quote:
It's be called aggression under international law, not murder. Because it is recognized that governments can't murder. Under international law (if you accept that law), governments can commit genocide, aggression, etc, but not murder. |
What if the US never signed onto these international laws? Yeah, the slaughter of a billion people is not murder, it's "aggression". . Does the phrase "crimes against humanity" ring a bell? Murder is a crime, so how can a state commit crimes?
"Morality depends on who is in charge" - Imran's justification for genocide
Yeah, that'll do for my sig
[quote]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Spiffor - Before getting to your most recent post, you deny there are universal desires, how do you explain this:
Those are your words and certainly is a universal desire... |
Huh? We all desire to be sodomized? Must tell that to Ben Kenobi and Park Avenue More seriously, this sentence was not aimed at being bulletproof, but at showing a point: all of us (implied: intelligent polytubbies that are not completely bigoted) agree that sodomy should be legal. I never meant the absolute unanimity of the world felt so. Quite the contrary actually, if you look at the backward countries.
quote:
How does that mean your beliefs don't require unanimity? Applied, application, doesn't matter, you still said you needed everyone to agree that your system is legitimate. |
Which is different with everyone agreeing it's the right thing to do.
quote:
Not vague at all, I already gave you the short definition of freedom. The problem with any system is that the state will need to infringe upon our freedom in order to preserve the remaining freedom even if taxes were entirely non-coercive. A libertarian system seeks to keep the intrusion minimal while a democracy doesn't. |
So, the only difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is the extent to which the State intrudes in personal freedoms. So basically, the libertarians would enjoy living in a democratic system, if they were ensured a satisfying set of freedoms would be left untouched for eternity.
quote:
Obviously, but that wasn't what I asked. Do you prefer the majority's morality to your own? |
Of course I prefer my own to that of the majority's. And I prefer my own to yours, miles away
quote:
But do you prefer majority rule with all the evil it can do to a system based on your morality? |
If my system was made without the consent of the people (the majority of them agreeing with the system, the quasi-unanimity agreeing the decision is legitimate), then I would consider it immoral. I dislike forcing people to my beliefs. Hence, for my system to be more moral than majority rule, it'd have to be approved by the majority 
quote:
It's only obscure because you haven't taken the time to consider what ownership means and what it entails wrt moral authority (not meant as an insult). It all starts with ownership and that beginning creates the moral foundation by which a path of logic can be followed on just about every situation that can arise. Courts, i.e., juries usually require unaminity to take away the accused' freedom, some want to make it majority rule, some want super majorities. This is all irrelevant to where the moral authority resides... If I commit murder, then the victim's moral authority of self-defense transforms into someone else's moral authority for retribution. |
Does it mean the victim of any other offense, that doesn't leave them dead, has the moral authority of retribution? Say, if I am a victim of theft, should I be the one who decides the punishment for the thief? What prevents me from deciding to quarter the little punk who stole my watch?
quote:
But we are debating which system is the most moral. |
Well, that wasn't my intention when entering this thread, but if you really wish...
I don't hold freedom for being an absolute good, something where we should be maximalist. Freedom is good, until the strong exploits the weak. In this regard I live by the word of Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses and law which liberates".
Your own system is full of limitations of the freedom to be a criminal, your own system acknwoledges there is no freedom to kill, to rape, to cannibalize etc. Which is good.
However, your system strongly lacks such protection in economic matters, and this is by far my main beef with it. A libertarian boss can exploit his workforce however he wants, because "they signed the contract" - the Libs seem to refuse to acknowledge that in their system, many workers have no choice but work for exploitative bosses or die of starvation... That's like saying a victim of rape has a choice between being raped or killed by the knife of the rapist.
Besides, the absolute lack of welfare, and (in the floydist version of libertarianism, I don't know if you share this aspect with him) of public education, just forces the poor to accept whatever crap they find for their mere survival, without a chance to ensure a future for them or their children.
I happen to agree with Libertarians on most issues regarding personal freedoms, because personal freedoms very rarely imply a relation between the strong and the weak.
But I disagree with Libertarians on all economic matters I can think of. The basic flaw of libertarianism is the belief that people have agreed to be exploited.
You speak about caveats, and this is a big one: people only agree to cope up with bad working conditions (and now doubt the working conditions would be worse in libertarianism than what we have today, since there would be no regulation), because they are pressed by their survival to do so. That's a caveat if I ever saw one - and it isn't a mental disorder, it is the norm for everybody that is expandable.
Yes, libertarianism will starve and exploit the poor in a fashion similar to 19th century Europe, or modern-day very backward countries. That's because the bosses will be free to do whatever they want with their expandable employees, who'll have no choice but to cope with that, or to die of starvation. And Libertarians will say "See? The employees agree! They are free to leave the company!"
This is horribly immoral in my book. And this is why, should the Libs ever pose a threat to take power, I'd consider libertarians my political enemies (on par with fascists) rather than my political opponents: because their system would destroy the very fabric of our society, because their system would disband everything that separates our civilization from the Jungle's law.
quote:
But modern Germany is a mere ~5 decades old, give them time. The US Constitution had explicit protections but ~100 years later the majority had successfully done away with the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment. In the 1870's (I believe) the Supreme Court re-wrote the 1st Amendment turning the "free exercise of religion" into the "free thought of religion". This was done because "Christians" didn't like the Mormons and their religious practice of polygamy and the SCOTUS decision effectively made the US a majority rule system wrt religion. |
Wouldn't "free practice of religion" give an allowance to do whatever you want if you disguise under religious belief? Say my religion requires me to kill libertarians, would it be ok to practice my religion freely?
I happen to disagree on the ban on polygamy (or at least on the reasons leading to it). But since there should be no absolute freedom af action (no freedom of murder, rape etc.), there should be no absolute freedom of religious action or political action or whatever, for the same reason there should be no absolute freedom of "generic" action.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2004 10:09
|