Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2004, 09:58 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Explaining Radical Libertarianism

OK. Repeatedly, on this board and others, I've been confronted by Statists of various stripes demanding, suggesting, and otherwise ordering that I and my family submit to various types of laws. Some of these laws make sense and seem permissible to me; most do not.

Some explanation. A Law is permissible and Moral if it is designed to protect either Life, Liberty, or Property. These are the three Cardinal Rights which every person posesses by virtue, simply, of being Human. For example: a law forbidding murder is permissible and moral, a law forbidding smoking in a private space is not.
Law is Force. This Force is brought to bear against a Lawbreaker in order to bring him to Justice. If the Law is unjust, then so is the Force used to enforce that law: few people would argue with this.
I would therefore argue that any law which does not protect Life, Liberty and Property from direct, physical harm caused by Malice or Negligence is Unjust.

Note that I said "protect," not "Gaurantee." Any law which purports to gaurantee any of these things is not only unenforceable, but logically impossible. Therefore, laws gauranteeing healthcare, car insurance, etc etc do not fall under the "Protection Doctrine" as I call it. They do not protect against Malice or Negligence on the part of an outside party, but rather purport to protect someone against his own bad luck or stupidity.

If any law which does not fall under the Protection Doctrine is immoral and unjust, then it is our responsibility to resist it. Again, I think few would disagree with this.

Now we come to the meat of the arguement. If it is our responsibilty to resist any Immoral law, while obeying Moral ones, what is the situation for a thinking, rational person? For -this- thinking, rational person, at least, it is as follows.

1: I will obey all Moral laws.
2: I will disobey, at every opportunity, all Immoral laws.
3: I will resist, by any means nessessary, any attempt to force me to violate my conscience by following Immoral laws, or to force me to force others to do so.

Many Statists do not grasp the practical applications of this. They simply say, when asked "How are you gonna make me?" "Well, we'll just pass a law, and then you'll..." No. I won't. See ( 2 ) above. Moreover, I will resist, perhaps violently, if any attempt is made to -force- me to do so.

The practical applications are these:

I will keep the fruits of my labour. ALL of them. This means no Infernal Revenue Service prats crawling all over my income and stealing 40% of it through threat of force. On the street, that's known as Armed Robbery, and my response will be the same as if such an attempt was made on the street.

I will keep my weapons. ALL of them, in whatever configuration, shape, and type I please. I will use such weapons only in defense of Life and Liberty, but I will keep them. Since weapons are the means through which we ultimately secure our Liberty, any attempt to take them from me will be seen as a direct assault upon that Liberty.

I will eat, drink, and smoke whatever I wish. If I get cancer, get fat, or just get stoned and drive off a cliff, it's my problem. If I injure or kill someone else, fine: throw me in jail, shoot my ass, whatever. But so long as I harm no-one else, do not attempt to stop me from eating, drinking, and smoking whatever I like. Any attempt to do so will be seen as a direct assault upon my Liberty, and be dealt with as such.

I will marry whom I wish, as many of them as I wish, as often as I wish, and will have as many children as I wish. Provided that all parties to such a marriage are consenting adult Humans, it is nobody's buisness but mine and my spouses. Any attempt to forcibly divorce us or divest us of our Parental Rights will be seen as a direct, physical assault upon my family and will be dealt with as such.

Perhaps this sounds ominous. It's not meant to be; if I, and people like me, are left alone, we are perfectly peaceable. However, should any person, agency, or Government attempt to infringe upon any of these; to force me to follow an Immoral Law, will bring dire consequences. In other words:

If you infringe upon my rights, I WILL SHOOT YOU. If you send someone else to do it for you, I will shoot HIM and then I WILL SHOOT YOU. No law, edict, or statute will change this. I will not obey an Immoral law, and I will kill anyone who tries to make me obey such a law. Pass all the laws you want; I will ignore them. It all comes down to this: I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. I don't care. I won't be made to care: not by you or anyone else. Ban my guns: I won't care, and I won't obey. Tell me to surrender some of my income: I won't care, and I won't obey. Tell me I have to marry one woman or nobody at all: I won't care, and I won't obey. Tell my I can't have my steak, my Vodka, or my Ganja: I won't care, and I won't obey.

I am perfectly content to be left alone with my disobediance. I don't -want- a fight. But if the fight is brought to me, if Force is brought to bear against me, I will resist. I may die for such resistance, I may lose the Freedom I hold so dear, but at least I will go to my grave or my cell knowing that I did what was right, that I did not fail in the face of fear, and that I was true to myself, at the last. I do not fear to die; I fear only to lose myself, and to stand ashamed for it when I face my ancestors and my God.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the silent, desperate face of huge numbers of Americans who only want to live their lives in peace. Leave us alone, and we will leave you alone, and at peace. Please; do not force our hands on this. Because we will not quail, we will not back down, and we will not die easily or quietly. We do not wish to fight you. Please, don't make us.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:38 PM   #2 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Fascinating.

Many of us are interested in pursuing a political system that actually functions.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Shaving cream.
Be nice and clean.

Last edited by powerclown; 09-13-2004 at 11:06 PM.. Reason: no idea
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:53 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
This seems to me to be very similiar to politics of celebrated anarchists like Proudhun and Bakunin and other pre-Soviet revolutionaries; tinged with perhaps just a little more ominous threats of violence.

Permit me to quote from Proudhon directly.
Quote:
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.)
Personally, I don't subscribe to this political point of view (and are probably almost diametrically opposed on the political spectrum!), but find it interesting to see such a lengthy defence posted here.

Would it be acceptable to engage in a question and answer type debate? I really am interested and whilst I don't think I could ever convince you to change your position, I would like to understand them more; and perhaps even debate both our political beliefs.

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 03:12 AM   #5 (permalink)
Insane
 
How does one determine whether a law is immoral or not, given that morality is not objective?
And how did it come about that you have these implicit 'rights' because you were born a particular species?
adysav is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 05:24 AM   #6 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by adysav
How does one determine whether a law is immoral or not, given that morality is not objective?
And how did it come about that you have these implicit 'rights' because you were born a particular species?
It's a basic concept of natural law: Do not harm others. Do not coerce others. Do not violate the right of others to own property. All necesssary laws are derived from those. They are the smiplest, most minimal set of laws that are required to define rights.
MSD is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 05:34 AM   #7 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
You don't wish to pay any taxes?

Because enforcement of those laws that you do believe to be just, costs money.

Also, with the weapons issue: where do you draw the line? Or do you believe that you should be able to obtain nuclear weapons?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 05:39 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
It's a basic concept of natural law: Do not harm others. Do not coerce others. Do not violate the right of others to own property. All necesssary laws are derived from those. They are the smiplest, most minimal set of laws that are required to define rights.
By those tenets, 99% of Americans should be turfed out of their homes and sent packing back to Europe.

So, effectively the basis of these "natural laws" you mention are flawed from first premises.

That's why I think anarchist political thinking is simple hogwash. :-)


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 05:50 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I should also point out that the term "natural law" has very specific meanings in philosophy, ethics and Christian (especially Catholic) thought.

The terms "Moral law" and "Cardinal Rights" used above seem a bit tenous to me. I should also clarify that the fact that I quoted Proudhon does not mean, in any way, that I agree with him.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 06:02 AM   #10 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: I think my horns are coming out
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
I should also point out that the term "natural law" has very specific meanings in philosophy, ethics and Christian (especially Catholic) thought.

The terms "Moral law" and "Cardinal Rights" used above seem a bit tenous to me. I should also clarify that the fact that I quoted Proudhon does not mean, in any way, that I agree with him.


Mr Mephisto
Something that realyl bothers me there is the moral and immoral distinction of law. Thats BS IMO.

Morals are SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE and they vary from person to person like the weather.

That whole system falls to bits when you have a person, or a group, that does not see murder or rape as morally wrong, and then what? Humans are not intrinsically good. Not all people are naturally peaceful.

Their premise is great, as long as EVERYONE cooperates and agrees. Any reasonable person will realise that that is just an unatainable fantasy. People disagree, and not all people are the same.
The Phenomenon is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 06:03 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Well said Phenomenon.

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 11:38 AM   #12 (permalink)
Irradiation for fun and profit
 
Location: Controlled access area
I take a little bit of Locke's point of view as far as the reason for the existence of government: to protect the property and freedom of its citizens. I believe that that is the sole purpose of government and that anything stepping beyond those bounds to restrict activities that do not hurt anyone but the person doing it or to create laws where there is no logical factual basis for the law fitting into that reason is tyranny.
For example:
Maintaining a reasonable standing army: Acceptable, protects the citizens of the country from outside influence.

Instituting taxes to pay for the army: Acceptable, necessary to maintain the army.

Laws to keep gays from marrying: Unacceptable, even assuming that god himself came down from the heavens and proclaimed it to be a most grievous sin leading straight to hell, the people involved aren't hurting anyone but themselves.
__________________
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
-- Mark Twain
davik is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:32 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.

Theft, whether by a Government or a Ganagsta, is WRONG. Period.
Murder, whether by a Policeman or a Pimp, is WRONG. Period.
Fraud, whether by the IRS or Miss Cleo, is WRONG. Period.
Slavery, whether perpetrated by the Dept. of Treasury or some thug in Sudan, is WRONG. Period.

If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.

Murder is WRONG/IMMORAL: Self-defense is RIGHT/MORAL
Theft is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Fraud is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Rape is WRONG/IMMORAL.

If a person emerges in society who sees the above things as permissable, and they act upon this ( Murder/rape/rob/defraud someone ) then they must be REMOVED from society: Preferably by their intended victims. If their intended victims don't do the job at the time of the attempted Tresspass, then it is the task of the State to remove the offender from Society.
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
For nonviolent robberies and frauds, the best solution is imprisonment. Such a crime does not merit the loss of life, but certainly the loss of Freedom.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:49 AM   #14 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.

If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.
The idea that there is some kind of 'natural law' is ridiculous. This is not about 'allowing' morality to be subjective, it just IS subjective.

Kiling might be wrong to you, but for some Asian communities, killing someone who has done brought dishonour on your family regains that honour. This would be considered more than a little harsh in the western world and come under the heading 'murder' (I like putting things in quotes :P).
Is theft immoral if it is to feed a starving child?
If right is right and wrong is wrong, how can there be a grey area like you say. People invented the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, they are not naturally occuring in the sense that there is some implicit justice system built into the universe.

If a lion kills a baby wildebeest, is that immoral or does 'natural law' only apply to humans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
I like the use of the word 'intended' here. What you're saying is that a would be attacked should be executed on the spot before they commit a crime.

The Aztecs condoned ritual human sacrifice, it was not immoral to them. There are other examples, but I have a bus to catch back later.
adysav is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:55 AM   #15 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
at least anarchists understand enough to know that the regulation of the collective is an important aspect of exercizing autonomy--the rules of action are political, are to be collectively decided upon, democratically.

libertarians run away from even this by referring to "natural law"--which really shows that they are little more than bourgeois individualists whose politics lead to a kind of maxium disempowerment, a total abdication of any relation to the social world that conditions them. their notion of "natural law" is a clear index of their servile relation to the existing ideology....read some marx, for christ's sake....

they cannot begin to think of the fact that their positions are historically conditioned and therefore cannot even begin to concieve of what an alternative social order would look like.
capitalism can do and say as it likes--libertarians have nothing to say.
economic assymetries can exist and perpetuate themselves ad inifintium--since most libertarians like to pretend they are howard roarke, they do not care.

what matters is the isolated individual with a gun. the patchwork of origin texts--from locke to ayn rand--are all enormously problematic, but no matter--everything is about the Heroic Individual. the fabrication and maintenance of this fiction precludes any critical reading of texts.

the good thing about "radical libertarian" pseudo-politics lies precisely in this tendency to self-negation.
with the result that i am fine with these folk being out there and confident that the internal logic of their own politics would lead to their effective disappearance from politics.
i do not care what the Heroic Indiivudals do in their armed rural compounds.
i hope they have a great time, lovely lives, etc.

but do not confuse libertarianism with a politics. it is simple capitulation wrapped in a tedious bourgeois mythology.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:57 AM   #16 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by adysav
The Aztecs condoned ritual human sacrifice, it was not immoral to them. There are other examples, but I have a bus to catch back later.
Just because a person or group does something doesn't make it right. Harming another person against their will in any situation other than self-defense is wrong.

The Samurai of Feudal Japan engaged in the practice of tsujigiri, a verb meaning "to try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer." In order to avoid dishonor when in battle, the Samurai had to ensure that the sword could cut an enemy from one shoulder to the opposite flank, completing a proper cut. In order to aavoid the potential dishonor in combat, they would lie in wait at a crossroad, and test the sword on a chance wayfarer. Moral relativism does not allow us to criticize that practice because it was acccepted in the culture of the time. If we had asked the wayfarer what the thought of the practice, he would give us a very different opinion. However, because of the Samurai's status in society, his opinion was what mattered most.

Similarly, slavery was acceptable in American culture for hundreds of years. Simply because it was acceptable does not mean that it was the right thing to do at the time.

This week in Iran, a 16-year-old girl was hanged because she was caught having sex with an unmarried man. Simply because this is accepted in their culture does not make it right.
MSD is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 10:27 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Roachboy:
I have read Marx, thank you, and being a former Communist myself, I know whatof I speak. Having read my Marx et al, I reject it. The ideology of Marx is the ideology of slavery: the individual is a slave of the Collective, the few of the many. This is not freedom, this is tyranny.
The thing about Libertarianism ( radical or otherwise ) is this: no Libertarian system will ever prevent someone from thinking, acting, or voting as a Communist. Communists, however, are generally more than happy to prevent people from thinking, acting, and voting Libertarian.
A Libertarian will never -force- you to keep your guns, keep your wages, or marry 6 wives. You can do as you like, provided you don't physically harm anyone.
A Communist will gladly FORCE you to give up all these things. Statists are more than happy to force people to give up their guns, wages, and wives.

In other words, my ideology does not demand that you be beaten up, killed, or imprisoned for practicing your own ideology. Your ideology, however, explicitly demands that I be beaten up, killed, or imprisoned for practicing mine.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 10:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i wasnt referring to marx in that sense in any event, dunedan: i was referring to the notion of ideology, from which follows (or which follows from) a whole theory, variously revised by others across time, about the individual as a social product/function....social norms are historical (and therefore are political, that is subject to change)...which runs directly counter to any coherent notion of "natural law or its derivatives.

start from there.

sorry if i created confusion by not spelling out what i meant with the marx reference.

btw, i am not interested in trying to address your "understanding" of socialism or communism or the problematic linkages between these ideas and marx's texts (the cp never encouraged much in the way of close reading of marx, which helped reduce the problems) simply because that would run the thread into a completely different area.

pressed for time.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 09-15-2004 at 10:41 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 10:40 AM   #19 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Hey, dunedan. Completely agree with you on the notion of objective morality, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on these two issues that you addressed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
You don't wish to pay any taxes?

Because enforcement of those laws that you do believe to be just, costs money.

Also, with the weapons issue: where do you draw the line? Or do you believe that you should be able to obtain nuclear weapons?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:01 AM   #20 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
freedom only exists in community, not in isolation. to be a hermit is to be free only in the most negative aspect, to have freedom from the power of others, there is no positive freedom, the freedom to achieve full humanity.

I reject any concept of freedom that only wishes to be free as the hermit, to live as one wills selfishly as long as there is no harm done to others... only through a society that is fully functioning and socialised can people really be free to become happy. society must protect the isolated from drifting away and becoming hermits, they must, if necessary, be helped to become functioning members of the commune. It is not a case of force, a hermit must always be allowed to be a hermit, but in a communistic society only the mentally ill would wish such a thing.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:04 AM   #21 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Roachboy:
I have read Marx, thank you, and being a former Communist myself, I know whatof I speak. Having read my Marx et al, I reject it. The ideology of Marx is the ideology of slavery: the individual is a slave of the Collective, the few of the many. This is not freedom, this is tyranny.
The thing about Libertarianism ( radical or otherwise ) is this: no Libertarian system will ever prevent someone from thinking, acting, or voting as a Communist. Communists, however, are generally more than happy to prevent people from thinking, acting, and voting Libertarian.
A Libertarian will never -force- you to keep your guns, keep your wages, or marry 6 wives. You can do as you like, provided you don't physically harm anyone.
A Communist will gladly FORCE you to give up all these things. Statists are more than happy to force people to give up their guns, wages, and wives.

In other words, my ideology does not demand that you be beaten up, killed, or imprisoned for practicing your own ideology. Your ideology, however, explicitly demands that I be beaten up, killed, or imprisoned for practicing mine.
Marx wrote very little about society after the revolution, I am interested as to how you have divined Marx's philosophy on the structure of the future society. It sounds rather more as if you have read Bend Sinister or smething of that nature.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:12 AM   #22 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
I would actually like this 'system' of government.

The problem is that like communism it wouldn't work in practice.

Human nature would intervene.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:30 AM   #23 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.

Theft, whether by a Government or a Ganagsta, is WRONG. Period.
Murder, whether by a Policeman or a Pimp, is WRONG. Period.
Fraud, whether by the IRS or Miss Cleo, is WRONG. Period.
Slavery, whether perpetrated by the Dept. of Treasury or some thug in Sudan, is WRONG. Period.

If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.

Murder is WRONG/IMMORAL: Self-defense is RIGHT/MORAL
Theft is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Fraud is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Rape is WRONG/IMMORAL.

If a person emerges in society who sees the above things as permissable, and they act upon this ( Murder/rape/rob/defraud someone ) then they must be REMOVED from society: Preferably by their intended victims. If their intended victims don't do the job at the time of the attempted Tresspass, then it is the task of the State to remove the offender from Society.
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
For nonviolent robberies and frauds, the best solution is imprisonment. Such a crime does not merit the loss of life, but certainly the loss of Freedom.
Who decides what is wrong?

is it wrong for a dog to kill a racoon?

all morality is subjective and produced by society - you are a subject of society and cannot exist outside of the environment you have lived in the last 18+ years.

How is it to be administered, this right o instant retribution? Every killer would say that the victim had attacked him and he had only defended himself... all you recomend is a state of constant civil war, constant robbery and murder and fear, of every man and against every man - the state you propose is pathetic and weak, unable to secure the peace, it is Hobbes nightmare, the state of nature, life is nasty and brutish and short.

In fact society's have existed where rape (for example) was morally permissable - you can read the Bible for examples - where t6hese people devoid of the absolute morality you preach, or did they live in society's with different morality? How will future society's judge us, our war's, our wage slavery, our exploitation of the third world, our wanton pollution of the natural environment?

I am sorry to reply three times, but the more I read this thread the more it frightens me. The first job, role, or function of every society is to keep the peace, for their to be a rule of law, so that standards and rules can be applied evenly and fairly - all you say in reality means the rule of the fist, the gun, the fire bomb. Anyone is permitted to do anything, because there is no power sufficient to prevent it, you even welcome killing - if the killer claims it was in self defence.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:45 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Roachboy:
Point taken, and I apologize for my defensive and snappish demeanor.
FoolThemAll:
The taxe to which I object are the Coercive variety: Income, Capital-Gains, etc etc. Voluntary taxes, such as sales-taxes and import duties, are entirely Moral and I have no objection to paying them. Prior to the introduction of the Income Tax, the Federal Gov't was effectively limited to it's Constitutional functions by lack of funds: it couldn't -afford- to do anything other than perform it's Constitutional functions, simply put. It got by just fine.

Strange Famous: I don't know if you noticed, but I -did- in fact allow for Government to intervene and punish ( end endeavor to prevent through deterrance ) Crime. What I object to is the existance of "offenses" which have no human victim. And in such cases as you cite: yes, those people were Immoral. Just because someone's in the Bible doesn't make them a Saint.
Notice that I also said nothing about being a hermit. "Being -left- alone" and "being alone" are not synonymous.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:52 AM   #25 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Interesting. How does one distinguish between voluntary taxes and coercive taxes in this context?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 11:59 AM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
A coercive tax is one in which you are told ( by the Government ) "Pay up or go to jail." Good examples are the Income, Capital-Gains, and Property taxes most people pay.

Non-coercive taxes are those which one can choose not to pay. For example, if the Gov't puts a tax on a certain imported product: Japanese TV sets, say. Now, the cost of that taz would, of course, be transferred to the Consumer, but the Consumer could choose to purchase a non-Japanese Tv set, thereby not paying the tax. Another example would be a sales tax on, say, sugar. A person could buy the sugar & pay the sax; they could also make their own sugar, use brown-sugar, use artificial sweeteners, molassas, honey, etc etc. Nobody is forcing them to pay the tax by purchasing the sugar: therefore the tax is Moral.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 12:28 PM   #27 (permalink)
jconnolly
Guest
 
What if the exporter disagrees with the tax, and wishes to exploit the sugar market in your libertarian society? What if the customer wants high quality sugar imported without the taxes they view as unnecessary?

Last edited by jconnolly; 09-15-2004 at 12:29 PM.. Reason: UNnecessary
 
Old 09-15-2004, 12:41 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
If the importer disagrees, they can lobby to have the tax changed.
If the Consumer wants sugar, but doesn't want to pay the tax, they can lobby for the tax to be changed.

Either entity ( or both ) could form a buisness to produce domestic sugar and thereby not pay the import duties.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 02:44 PM   #29 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Just because a person or group does something doesn't make it right. Harming another person against their will in any situation other than self-defense is wrong.
Similarly, slavery was acceptable in American culture for hundreds of years. Simply because it was acceptable does not mean that it was the right thing to do at the time.

This week in Iran, a 16-year-old girl was hanged because she was caught having sex with an unmarried man. Simply because this is accepted in their culture does not make it right.
Well... yes it does. Even the writers of Star Trek have figured that out
Slavery has existed up until recently in most cultures since the dawn of civilisation. Enslavement of Africans by arabs has been going on for thousands of years, and as far as I know it still does.

Most western people would agree that it is immoral to kill another human - or another animal for that matter - for your own ends, excluding food. Practices like sacrifice of animals and people, honour killings, tsujigiri and the like have existed in most cultures, particularly asia, africa and south america. So when you say 'a person or group does something doesn't make it right', you really mean the entire human race give or take a few.

If it was moral then why isn't it moral now? Because morality is decided by the person considering the act and the time and culture they live in, not predetermined.

Basically you mean what you believe is right is better than what they believe is right, because you say so.
adysav is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 03:32 PM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Just because a person or group does something doesn't make it right. Harming another person against their will in any situation other than self-defense is wrong.

The Samurai of Feudal Japan engaged in the practice of tsujigiri, a verb meaning "to try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer." In order to avoid dishonor when in battle, the Samurai had to ensure that the sword could cut an enemy from one shoulder to the opposite flank, completing a proper cut. In order to aavoid the potential dishonor in combat, they would lie in wait at a crossroad, and test the sword on a chance wayfarer. Moral relativism does not allow us to criticize that practice because it was acccepted in the culture of the time. If we had asked the wayfarer what the thought of the practice, he would give us a very different opinion. However, because of the Samurai's status in society, his opinion was what mattered most.

Similarly, slavery was acceptable in American culture for hundreds of years. Simply because it was acceptable does not mean that it was the right thing to do at the time.

This week in Iran, a 16-year-old girl was hanged because she was caught having sex with an unmarried man. Simply because this is accepted in their culture does not make it right.
I don't agree with your conclusion that moral relativism results in a lack of one's ability to criticize a given practice.

What it does call for is understanding the context wherein the behavior occurs. You did that when you explicated the reasons underpinning the practice of the Samurai, and concluded that he thought them moral.

But you were still able to criticize the practice by involving the reasons why a wayfarer would or should not be subject to being sliced in half. You based your criticism on the wayfarer's right or belief or however you want to label it not to be violated against his will.

Unfortunately, either intentionally or not, you dismissed that basis by claiming it didn't internally matter due to the social hierarchy at the time rather than allowing that such a criiticism should resonate deeply with a libertarian (with it's emphasis on individual rights over the collective social order). I think you would benefit by revisiting that issue and incorporating the ability to conduct external criticisms based on an understanding of the internal social understandings into your analysis of morality.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 03:36 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by adysav
Most western people would agree that it is immoral to kill another human - or another animal for that matter - for your own ends, excluding food. Practices like sacrifice of animals and people, honour killings, tsujigiri and the like have existed in most cultures, particularly asia, africa and south america. So when you say 'a person or group does something doesn't make it right', you really mean the entire human race give or take a few.
The entire world agrees that it is immoral to kill another human being. I think there is one anthropological study that found a tiny group of people who were enmeshed in individualism so deeply that killing wasn't an issue. But I don't remember the name of the people and haven't given it much thought since reading the excerpt in one of my intro books years ago.

What various peoples will disagree on is what behavior constitutes "murder." We do it here, too. That's why self-defence and capital punishment are not socially defined as murder by our social standards (although even some citizens see them as such and push for the larger to understand such behaviors in the same vein).
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 05:03 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
I will marry whom I wish, as many of them as I wish, as often as I wish, and will have as many children as I wish. Provided that all parties to such a marriage are consenting adult Humans, it is nobody's buisness but mine and my spouses. Any attempt to forcibly divorce us or divest us of our Parental Rights will be seen as a direct, physical assault upon my family and will be dealt with as such.
What if the people determine that you are ruling your children or wife immorally? Is spanking immoral? Is grounding? Morality is completely subjective, and with the exception of some near-universals there is no completely consistent morality in any large society. I think theivery is wrong, but not under all circumstances. I feel the same about the taking of life, or fraud. There are even groups of people who have no problem with rape.

Under any system it is the people who gunk up the works. It all looks good on paper but in the end the greedy folks will compare notes with the shifty folks and everyone else will get bent over.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 03:21 AM   #33 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
The entire world agrees that it is immoral to kill another human being...
What various peoples will disagree on is what behavior constitutes "murder."...
People believe it is immoral to kill another human because our biological advancement over other animals has endowed us with empathy for our fellow man (and other animals to some extent).
Put up posters of Canadians clubbing baby seals to death and there is uproar. Ask someone to crush the head of a puppy under his boot and in the majority of cases you will get a very negative reaction. Present the same situation with a spider, cockroach or other vermin and there will very rarely be hesitation.
The opposition to killing is not a universal law, but biological and social conditioning that ensure the survival of the species.
Just because we understand the suffering of our victims doesn't make it inherently wrong.
adysav is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 04:10 AM   #34 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
1: I will obey all Moral laws.
2: I will disobey, at every opportunity, all Immoral laws.
3: I will resist, by any means nessessary, any attempt to force me to violate my conscience by following Immoral laws, or to force me to force others to do so.

Many Statists do not grasp the practical applications of this. They simply say, when asked "How are you gonna make me?" "Well, we'll just pass a law, and then you'll..." No. I won't. See ( 2 ) above. Moreover, I will resist, perhaps violently, if any attempt is made to -force- me to do so.

If you infringe upon my rights, I WILL SHOOT YOU. If you send someone else to do it for you, I will shoot HIM and then I WILL SHOOT YOU.
You live in a society that has laws which may not fit into your definition of just - but they apply to you because you live within the society. You are able to break those laws. And if you get caught, you will be forced to make amends. If you resist, you will suffer consequences. You will not prevail.

You may shoot a lot of people. Or you may not. Eventually, you will be shot, and everything you think you have will be taken away.

The practical application of your ideology is non-existent. And the fundamentals are flawed: define private property - is it the land you live on? Why is it yours, because you bought it? Why was it someone else's to sell to you? Go back far enough and you find that the land you live on was stolen from someone. By your own concept of morals, you have no right to live on it. You are automatically a thief ... like the Government or a Ganagsta.

I also have a totally non-practical ideology, but in mine no one dies, steals, rapes, murders, etc. It's the perfect ideology. I call it Utopia.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 05:42 AM   #35 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: I think my horns are coming out
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.

Theft, whether by a Government or a Ganagsta, is WRONG. Period.
Murder, whether by a Policeman or a Pimp, is WRONG. Period.
Fraud, whether by the IRS or Miss Cleo, is WRONG. Period.
Slavery, whether perpetrated by the Dept. of Treasury or some thug in Sudan, is WRONG. Period.

If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.

Murder is WRONG/IMMORAL: Self-defense is RIGHT/MORAL
Theft is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Fraud is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Rape is WRONG/IMMORAL.

If a person emerges in society who sees the above things as permissable, and they act upon this ( Murder/rape/rob/defraud someone ) then they must be REMOVED from society: Preferably by their intended victims. If their intended victims don't do the job at the time of the attempted Tresspass, then it is the task of the State to remove the offender from Society.
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
For nonviolent robberies and frauds, the best solution is imprisonment. Such a crime does not merit the loss of life, but certainly the loss of Freedom.
Who the hell are you to decide what is right and wrong?

In our societies it is generally believed that murder is wrong, (although the definition of murder varies EXTREMELY) but that does not mean that its a fact. What makes murder wrong? Anything concrete? NO.

Many cultures do not believe that rape is wrong. Hell they do not even believe in the existance of such an act.

Who are you to decide that they are wrong and you are right?

Morality is 100% subjective.

"Moral is still Moral", WHAT IS MORAL? And who gets to decide? Society as a whole? If so thats called democarcy.

Who are you to decide what is wrong and right, moral and immoral for everyone? You go on and on about how other people should not force their stuff down your throat, but yet you want your set of morals enforced upon everyone.

Why does the man who does not hold the same set of morals than you have less rights than those that agree with you?
The Phenomenon is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 05:54 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by adysav
People believe it is immoral to kill another human because our biological advancement over other animals has endowed us with empathy for our fellow man (and other animals to some extent).
Put up posters of Canadians clubbing baby seals to death and there is uproar. Ask someone to crush the head of a puppy under his boot and in the majority of cases you will get a very negative reaction. Present the same situation with a spider, cockroach or other vermin and there will very rarely be hesitation.
The opposition to killing is not a universal law, but biological and social conditioning that ensure the survival of the species.
Just because we understand the suffering of our victims doesn't make it inherently wrong.
Are you agreeing with me?

The section of yours that I was responding to hinged upon a racist statement that the 'western' world was more socially 'advanced' than other parts of the world. I dispute that, but never claimed anything was inherently wrong.

I don't agree that 'westerners' have progressed any further than anyone else, only that all people define what they believe to be wrong or immoral behavior; people fill in the category of 'murder' and 'theft' according to their social norms, not based on an objective fact of what murder or theft are actually comprised of.

Murder and theft are containers that hold social meaning, they do not designate objective acts. People fill them in with acts that mean something to themselves and their societies. What one group of people defines as murder is different than what another group defines the same behavior. I don't agree that any one group could be said to be more biologically or culturally advanced than the next one based on how they respectively define their categories.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 09-16-2004 at 05:59 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 06:12 AM   #37 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phenomenon
Who the hell are you to decide what is right and wrong?

In our societies it is generally believed that murder is wrong, (although the definition of murder varies EXTREMELY) but that does not mean that its a fact. What makes murder wrong? Anything concrete? NO.

Many cultures do not believe that rape is wrong. Hell they do not even believe in the existance of such an act.

Who are you to decide that they are wrong and you are right?

Morality is 100% subjective.

"Moral is still Moral", WHAT IS MORAL? And who gets to decide? Society as a whole? If so thats called democarcy.

Who are you to decide what is wrong and right, moral and immoral for everyone? You go on and on about how other people should not force their stuff down your throat, but yet you want your set of morals enforced upon everyone.

Why does the man who does not hold the same set of morals than you have less rights than those that agree with you?
Right and wrong are human concepts, and thus defined by humans. Therefore, concrete evidence that killing another human being is wrong exists.

Try this experiment:
Take anyone in the world, doesn't matter who. Now ask him who he loves the most, with all his heart. Take the person he names, and have him watch as you shoot said person in the head. Ask how he feels about that.

Now give this person a job where he makes a good wage for hard work. Once he's done, take all that away from him. Ask how he feels.

Now ask this person what sexual act he would least prefer to have preformed on him. Now have him held down and this act preformed on him. Ask how he feels.

I'm pretty sure for every act he would have a negative feeling.

Very rarely, you might find a person who's response is neutral or positive to above stated acts. Such individuals have most likely been warped by a traumatic life experiance. However this is the exception rather than the rule.

I think your stance on this issue is quite simply, illogical.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly
whocarz is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:25 PM   #38 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
Are you agreeing with me?
Not exactly, just making comment more than anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
The section of yours that I was responding to hinged upon a racist statement that the 'western' world was more socially 'advanced' than other parts of the world. I dispute that, but never claimed anything was inherently wrong.
I wouldn't say it was a racist statement. Well, I said it so I can tell you it's not a racist statement. All the examples I could think of were from Asia, Africa or South America, which just happens to leave what we call the 'Western World'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't agree that 'westerners' have progressed any further than anyone else,
Neither do I.
I was just pointing out that in some places, at some time in history, you didn't need much of a reason to off someone.
If there was so much variation in the perceived value of a human life then it would seem odd that it was covered by some 'natural' law.

The biology bit was not a slight on johnny foreigner for being less 'evolved' than me. I was just pointing out that we are biologically programmed to do our best to survive, as is every species. I imagine that not butchering every person we meet would come under this.
adysav is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 02:25 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocarz
Right and wrong are human concepts, and thus defined by humans. Therefore, concrete evidence that killing another human being is wrong exists.

Try this experiment:
Take anyone in the world, doesn't matter who. Now ask him who he loves the most, with all his heart. Take the person he names, and have him watch as you shoot said person in the head. Ask how he feels about that.

Now give this person a job where he makes a good wage for hard work. Once he's done, take all that away from him. Ask how he feels.

Now ask this person what sexual act he would least prefer to have preformed on him. Now have him held down and this act preformed on him. Ask how he feels.

I'm pretty sure for every act he would have a negative feeling.

Very rarely, you might find a person who's response is neutral or positive to above stated acts. Such individuals have most likely been warped by a traumatic life experiance. However this is the exception rather than the rule.

I think your stance on this issue is quite simply, illogical.

Whether something is right or wrong is completely seperate from whether it makes someone feel bad. Sometimes the right thing hurts like a motherfucker. Sometimes the wrong thing feels really good. I find your stance lacking somewhat in logic too.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 03:20 PM   #40 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phenomenon

Many cultures do not believe that rape is wrong. Hell they do not even believe in the existance of such an act.
Which cultures would those be? In all those I am aware of, there is always protection of women, even those where they are only thought of as property. I'm not totally unversed in anthropology so I'm interested.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
explaining, libertarianism, radical


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360