Rational Mysticism?

[Burke]

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a libertarian organization that has in the past put out some good stuff. I've posted links to some of their articles here myself. However, with their current editor Max Borders, they have gone completely off the cliff and overtly embraced raw mysticism.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rational-mysticism-for-a-young-movement#axzz2I7aUVtZQ

When people fail to understand that reason is our only means of knowledge, as time goes by they begin to reject it more and more.

Next goes the freedom that rational men need to live and be happy.

Which is exactly what is going on here and in the rest of the country.

[wgbgator]

I didn't see much to object to when he discusses paradox, non-linearity, parable, etc.

[Burke]

Obama would agree with you completely.

[wgbgator]

Obama would agree with you completely.

As would many other highly educated people in the West I suspect, so I'm not sure why Obama was your go-to example there.

[GatorAbe7]

When people fail to understand that reason is our only means of knowledge, as time goes by they begin to reject more and more.



This is an absolutely loaded statement.

Are you using reason interchangeably with logic?

Philosophical thought as modern as the (theistic & atheistic) Existenitalism exposes limits of reason, leaving gray areas in which the mind operates.

When you say "knowledge," is this the Absolute Knowledge in the Hegelian sense?

Before we go off a cliff with Hegel, let's clear that up.

[wgbgator]

I'm not sure how you could be a capitalist (or a socialist, or conservative, or liberal) without some comfort with paradox and contradiction.

[WESGATORS]

Well, as a mystic, I would agree that religious principles need not be a part of our government merely because they are religious principles. Our government should be based on policies that have practical utility. I'm not sure what contradiction necessarily exists with being both a mystic and a rational individual (to be clear, "mystic" is a label cast by others who have not experienced the same "proof" that I have and have no way of accepting my "proof" as their "proof" - still, that is not sufficient to invalidate said "proof").

I see more contradictions in aspects of life that do not involve religion.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Minister_of_Information]

http://cnymagic.com/fun/Optical_Illusions/images/Dancing_Dots.jpg

Don't trust your eyes, Burke.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

It's interesting that Ayn Rand would despise libertarians and anarchists. These are people who advocate free markets, individual rights, and human liberty. If anything, you'd figure she might find common cause with them and instead focus all of her energy on the exploding power of the State. But no, she took swipes at everyone, both to her left and to her right.

Is there any chance she was an establishment gatekeeper put in place to keep people from going too far off the government worship reservation, Burke?

[wgbgator]

I think there's a better chance that she was just a disagreeable old hag who liked arguing with people, or more accurately, telling them loudly how they were wrong.

[WESGATORS]

It's interesting that Ayn Rand would despise libertarians and anarchists. These are people who advocate free markets, individual rights, and human liberty. If anything, you'd figure she might find common cause with them and instead focus all of her energy on the exploding power of the State. But no, she took swipes at everyone, both to her left and to her right.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html


Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare.

This is where Dreamliner, and perhaps yourself, would add the phrase ", also known as government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

[WESGATORS]

I think the problem is more easily understood from the anarchists perspective when criticizing the role of *any* government. The expectation that a group is going to act irrationally or without respect of another's rights is independent of whether or not they are labeled as a "government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

I think the problem is more easily understood from the anarchists perspective when criticizing the role of *any* government. The expectation that a group is going to act irrationally or without respect of another's rights is independent of whether or not they are labeled as a "government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

This is why anarchism (as I understand it) is anti-property, because that's the state's main role - protecting private property. From my POV, I've never understood the voluntarists (who get called "anarchists" too) position on how property and markets can exist without some sort of delegated force (which is basically a government). There seems to be some underlying assumptions on how people will behave that frankly seem fantastical to me.

[WESGATORS]

If one owns property, and he works together with others that own their own property to protect each other's property (included in that might be to higher others, perhaps non-owners, to help protect the property), then that would be a form of protection that exists without political delegation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

No, rights only entail recognition and, if recognition isn't forthcoming, the defense of them.

One need not create a Mafia protection racket or legal monopoly on violence to protect rights.

[wgbgator]

No, rights only entail recognition and, if recognition isn't forthcoming, the defense of them.

One need not create a Mafia protection racket or legal monopoly on violence to protect rights.

"defense of them" = protection racket

[WESGATORS]

"defense of them" = protection racket

If 5 neighbors band together and agree to help each other protect their property, where is the racket?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

"defense of them" = protection racket

If a mugger attacks you in a dark alley, and you successfully fight him off with your fists, would you call that "defending yourself" or "creating a protection racket"?

Do you even know what a protection racket is?

From Wikipedia:

A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces a victim (usually a business) to pay money, supposedly for protection services against violence or property damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

[ChartsandGrafs]

If 5 neighbors band together and agree to help each other protect their property, where is the racket?



I've seen this all before. People can't attack the idea of anarchy without deliberately attempting to confuse the subject or conflate distinct concepts.

He knows what he is doing.

[wgbgator]

If a mugger attacks you in a dark alley, and you successfully fight him off with your fists, would you call that "defending yourself" or "creating a protection racket"?

Do you even know what a protection racket is?

From Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket


Oh, so now you want to get all precise with definitions. So, can we first agree that a state with a constitutional government and a protection racket are different things?

[wgbgator]

I've seen this all before. People can't attack the idea of anarchy without deliberately attempting to confuse the subject or conflate distinct concepts.

He knows what he is doing.

You do this all the time. You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia. But now you want to make distinctions when it suits you. I'm just arguing on your terms.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Oh, so now you want to get all precise with definitions. So, can we first agree that a state with a constitutional government and a protection racket are different things?

What's different about it, exactly?

If the crime bosses of the local Sicilian Mafia sit down and draw up a "Constitution" that says they are allowed to rob you and they all sign it, does that mean their protection racket all of a sudden becomes a legitimate government? If they allow their victims to vote for the Mafia henchmen who will preside over the administration of the protection racket, does the protection racket all of a sudden become a legitimate, democratically-elected government?

[ChartsandGrafs]

You do this all the time. You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia. But now you want to make distinctions when it suits you. I'm just arguing on your terms.

That's because the State and Mafia are functionally the same. The only differences are, the State is a legalized version of the Mafia whle the Mafia doesn't pretend to be legitimate like the State does.

[wgbgator]

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

[WESGATORS]

You consistenly claim the state is no different than the mafia.

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

The statist would require a protection services (regardless of who is paying for it); the anarchist would operate on voluntary participation.

I think the short version of this is that fewer people involved in a government serving fewer people leads to a lower chance of corruption.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS


Mutual agreements are fine. That sounds nice. I just wonder what happens when someone renegs, breaks it or otherwise violates it. Its one thing to agree on something, enforcement of ongoing cooperation is usually where the problem lies. You're getting very close to what the state does, on a basic level. And since he's called the state a protection racket, that's why I used his prefered term.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If you recognize the necessity for force to secure rights, then I really can't see how you are "functionally" different from a statist.

That's easy. I don't have to violate the non-aggression principle to secure my rights, a statist does.

Functionally speaking, the difference is enormous.

[wgbgator]

That's easy. I don't have to violate the non-aggression principle to secure my rights, a statist does.

Functionally speaking, the difference is enormous.

I don't think you understand what securing rights means. It doesnt mean just saying you that have them, and waiting to be attacked.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Mutual agreements are fine. That sounds nice. I just wonder what happens when someone renegs, breaks it or otherwise violates it. Its one thing to agree on something, enforcement of ongoing cooperation is usually where the problem lies. You're getting very close to what the state does, on a basic level.

OK, so let's assume the voluntary version of society doesn't work and you create a government to enforce contracts.

What happens when the government becomes the victim of regulatory capture and control of that government - and the immense forces at its disposal - falls into the hands of the same sort of people who break and violate contracts in a voluntary system? Now what?

Which outcome is worse?

[Minister_of_Information]

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I don't think you understand what securing rights means. It doesnt mean just saying you that have them, and waiting to be attacked.

Sure it does. If a mugger attacks me in a dark alley and I successfully defend myself, then I have secured and protected my rights.

Security doesn't necessarily mean you have to create an involuntary extortion/protection racket.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

There's no accountability in government either. Take a look at our own government, for example. Our government officials are protected by "qualified immunity", making them above the law in many aspects. Not only that, but if the government commits a crime and gets caught, they don't pay for it with their own money, they simply steal it from the taxpayers and then award it back to them as "damages".

Sure, you can vote out one set of political puppets and replace them with another, but you're not really holding anyone accountable. The system will march on just the same.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sure it does. If a mugger attacks me in a dark alley and I successfully defend myself, then I have secured and protected my rights.

Security doesn't necessarily mean you have to create an involuntary extortion/protection racket.

I also think talk of rights outside a social context is idle, as without society force is the only method of arbitration. Rights that are only a euphemism for force have no meaning apart from that force. "Rights" itself as a term implies the persuasion of others to support a claim.

[Minister_of_Information]

There's no accountability in government either. Take a look at our own government, for example. Our government officials are protected by "qualified immunity", making them above the law in many aspects. Not only that, but if the government commits a crime and gets caught, they don't pay for it with their own money, they simply steal it from the taxpayers and then award it back to them as "damages".

Sure, you can vote out one set of political puppets and replace them with another, but you're not really holding anyone accountable. The system will march on just the same.

Yet government officials can and are held accountable all the time. See the Ray Nagin thread.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I also think talk of rights outside a social context is idle, as without society force is the only method of arbitration. Rights that are only a euphemism for force have no meaning apart from that force. "Rights" itself as a term implies the persuasion of others to support a claim.

You don't have to create a legalized Mafia protection racket to have a society.

Also, there are other avenues of persuasion than violent force.

[Minister_of_Information]

You don't have to create a legalized Mafia protection racket to have a society.

Also, there are other avenues of persuasion than violent force.

Yes of course, that was my point. "Rights" mean that there is concord about what "rights" are and that they ought to be respected, sufficient that I am able to resort to reason rather than force when asserting them, and that social pressure is usually sufficient for enforcement (though one can posit cases of collaborative force being applied, even anarchically, in furtherance of some claim or other). Unfortunately this can only be accomplished anarchically if all of the actors are known to one another and so are informed enough to evaluate the claims made, and if force is used it becomes complicated by the social need for revenge.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yet government officials can and are held accountable all the time. See the Ray Nagin thread.

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Anarchic systems only function when everyone knows everyone, because otherwise there is no accountability.

Yep. And even then, there seems to be a need to invent laws.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

Actually, I disagree about the rationale for qualified immunity. It is needed to allow the judicious use of discretion where the authority to use discretion has been granted. You can't have officials making decisions that are unduly influenced by the fear of future spurious prosecutions, at least you can't without engendering timidity in those officials.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes of course, that was my point. "Rights" mean that there is concord about what "rights" are and that they ought to be respected, sufficient that I am able to resort to reason rather than force when asserting them, and that social pressure is usually sufficient for enforcement (though one can posit cases of collaborative force being applied, even anarchically, in furtherance of some claim or other). Unfortunately this can only be accomplished anarchically if all of the actors are known to one another and so are informed enough to evaluate the claims made, and if force is used it becomes complicated by the social need for revenge.

Assuming this is true, I don't think it's a good enough justification to create a massive, legalized extortion racket.

Do you?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Actually, I disagree about the rationale for qualified immunity. It is needed to allow the judicious use of discretion where the authority to use discretion has been granted. You can't have officials making decisions that are unduly influenced by the fear of future spurious prosecutions, at least you can't without engendering timidity in those officials.

In other words, you want "officials" to be legally shielded while they go around doing things mere mortals aren't allowed to do. Basically a two-tiered society, where it's "us" and "them".

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Minister_of_Information]

Assuming this is true, I don't think it's a good enough justification to create a massive, legalized extortion racket.

Do you?

You chose an interesting analogy to use when begging the question, as legality as a concept depends upon the existence of a magistrate with enforcement powers. Who is that supposed to be where the establishment of government is concerned, God?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yep. And even then, there seems to be a need to invent laws.

There "seems" to be a "need"? Who says? And what laws are you referring to?

[Minister_of_Information]

In other words, you want "officials" to be legally shielded while they go around doing things mere mortals aren't allowed to do. Basically a two-tiered society, where it's "us" and "them".

Some animals are more equal than others.

Yes, government entails the delegation of power to officials.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

There "seems" to be a "need"? Who says? And what laws are you referring to?

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You chose an interesting analogy to use when begging the question, as legality as a concept depends upon the existence of a magistrate with enforcement powers. Who is that supposed to be where the establishment of government is concerned, God?

I think you're missing the point, or maybe just avoiding it.

How does not personally knowing everyone justify the need for an involuntary protection racket? If it's a problem that you don't know someone, how would allowing them to extort other people that you don't know solve the underlying problem?

[Minister_of_Information]

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

Hunter gatherer tribes do not appear to have very much in the way of heirarchy or interpersonal authority apart from parent to child. Agrarian tribes OTOH are significantly more authoritarian.

[Minister_of_Information]

I think you're missing the point, or maybe just avoiding it.

How does not personally knowing everyone justify the need for an involuntary protection racket? If it's a problem that you don't know someone, how would allowing them to extort other people that you don't know solve the underlying problem?

I don't think I'm missing the point. You're presuming a legal framework that emerges spontaneously from nature, whereby "extortion" could become "legal" and call itself government. Without a legal framework "extortion" is a meaningless term. Seen that way, when societies emerge from within a state of nature and consequently create legality via collaborative force, that created legality imposes a burden that must be borne by the members of that society if it is to endure. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't judge society under the terms of its derivative institutions.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes, government entails the delegation of power to officials.

Government doesn't entail the delegation of anything. I never delegated powers to anyone, they simply took them. And if I or anyone else ever tried to revoke those powers, the government would fight with murderous, indiscriminate ferocity to prevent it.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a fantasy. It's a government of special interests, and you ain't it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

There's also been quite a bit of rape and murder throughout human history. Does that mean history says there "seems" to be a "need" for it? Of course not.

By the way, most tribal laws are a reflection of natural law.

[Minister_of_Information]

Government doesn't entail the delegation of anything. I never delegated powers to anyone, they simply took them. And if I or anyone else ever tried to revoke those powers, the government would fight with murderous, indiscriminate ferocity to prevent it.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a fantasy. It's a government of special interests, and you ain't it.

Very well, the founders delegated them, and we have the liberty to revisit that delegation anytime we find it "adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution"; yet we are also cautioned to avoid doing this for "light and transient causes."

[ChartsandGrafs]

I don't think I'm missing the point. You're presuming a legal framework that emerges spontaneously from nature, whereby "extortion" could become "legal" and call itself government. Without a legal framework "extortion" is a meaningless term. Seen that way, when societies emerge from within a state of nature and consequently create legality via collaborative force, that created legality imposes a burden that must be borne by the members of that society if it is to endure. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't judge society under the terms of its derivative institutions.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The legal framework for a government protection racket comes not from nature, but from groups of men who seek power. So I ask, what's the justification for allowing them to have this power and the authority to do things other people can't do?

If it's wrong for me to rob you, why is it OK for them?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Very well, the founders delegated them, and we have the liberty to revisit that delegation anytime we find it "adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution"; yet we are also cautioned to avoid doing this for "light and transient causes."

Come on. What do you think our government would do if the little people tried to "revisit that delegation" of powers? If the forces of government couldn't covertly subvert the effort in its early stages, there would be all-out war in the streets. The people who own and control our government don't give a damn about the Constitution or the people's right to "redress grievances".

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

There's also been quite a bit of rape and murder throughout human history. Does that mean history says there "seems" to be a "need" for it? Of course not.

By the way, most tribal laws are a reflection of natural law.

I don't know about need, but those things are certainly part of human nature. As, apparently, are the "need" for humans to make law.

I think it less of a need and more of a reflection of cultural Darwinism.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The legal framework for a government protection racket comes not from nature, but from groups of men who seek power. So I ask, what's the justification for allowing them to have this power and the authority to do things other people can't do?

If it's wrong for me to rob you, why is it OK for them?

Hmmm, that is a deeper question than it appears. War is the justification for government, as it is the justification for the state.

Government cannot be a "protection racket" that "robs" people, because "protection rackets" and "robbery" are deriviative of the law, which is derivative of the institution of government itself. I hope that is clear.

[Minister_of_Information]

Come on. What do you think our government would do if the little people tried to "revisit that delegation" of powers? If the forces of government couldn't covertly subvert the effort in its early stages, there would be all-out war in the streets. The people who own and control our government don't give a damn about the Constitution or the people's right to "redress grievances".

I'm not sure why that is supposed to matter. If a war is required, a war will be fought.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Government cannot be a "protection racket" that "robs" people, because "protection rackets" and "robbery" are deriviative of the law, which is derivative of the institution of government itself. I hope that is clear.

No, it's not clear. Walk me through it in the most basic terms.

By saying that robbery and extortion is derivative of the law and government, are you meaning to say that robbery and extortion can only be defined by what the government says it is? That the acts of robbery and extortion, outside the existence of government, aren't really robbery and extortion at all? That for something to qualify as robbery or extortion requires government and man-made laws declaring it so?

It seems like you are saying just that. If not, feel free to correct me. But if this is your claim, it's incorrect. Robbery and extortion are only derivative of natural law, which in fact is not derivative on the institution of any government at all. In other words, in a state of anarchy, you would not be justified in going around robbing and extorting other free men. Such actions would naturally be seen as unjust, and you would likely end up getting your throat slit.

[lacuna]

http://cnymagic.com/fun/Optical_Illusions/images/Dancing_Dots.jpg

Don't trust your eyes, Burke.



Burke making his way through life:

http://www.toonpool.com/user/1087/files/blind_man_153385.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm not sure why that is supposed to matter. If a war is required, a war will be fought.

It matters because that's not liberty. You claimed we have, "the liberty to revisit the delegation of government power". But if we do so, heavily armed goons will attack us with extreme prejudice. That's not real liberty, man. Calling that choice "liberty" is the equivalent of calling the choice to pay coercive income taxes on your labor "liberty". Sure, you can choose not to pay, but it won't stop the federal Mafia from breaking down your door and hauling you away like a dog.

Again, that's not liberty, and it should tell you all you need to know about the myth of "delegated" powers. The government doesn't serve us, we serve the government. In the government's view, we are a resource to be exploited.

[Minister_of_Information]

No, it's not clear. Walk me through it in the most basic terms.

By saying that robbery and extortion is derivative of the law and government, are you meaning to say that robbery and extortion can only be defined by what the government says it is? That the acts of robbery and extortion, outside the existence of government, aren't really robbery and extortion at all? That for something to qualify as robbery or extortion requires government and man-made laws declaring it so?

It seems like you are saying just that. If not, feel free to correct me. But if this is your claim, it's incorrect. Robbery and extortion are only derivative of natural law, which in fact is not derivative on the institution of any government at all. In other words, in a state of anarchy, you would not be justified in going around robbing and extorting other free men. Such actions would naturally be seen as unjust, and you would likely end up getting your throat slit.

"Robbery" and "extortion" imply the violation of the law; the law does not exist without a political and administrative process whereby it is agreed upon, disseminated, and administered; this process has costs; those costs must be borne if we will that this process exists in the first place. Calling these costs "robbery" is putting the cart before the horse. There is no "robbery" without first paying the costs you characterize as "robbery."

Not that I concede that your characterization of government activity is valid in any other way, say morally perhaps.

Also, property itself is a social construct, or a function of collective will. If you as a solitary individual believe that you have exclusive rights to a particular resource, and no one else agrees with you and contests your ownership via force, what is won is plunder not property. Property depends upon a social order that acknowledges and collaboratively protects it.

[Minister_of_Information]

It matters because that's not liberty. You claimed we have, "the liberty to revisit the delegation of government power". But if we do so, heavily armed goons will attack us with extreme prejudice. That's not real liberty, man. Calling that choice "liberty" is the equivalent of calling the choice to pay coercive income taxes on your labor "liberty". Sure, you can choose not to pay, but it won't stop the federal Mafia from breaking down your door and hauling you away like a dog.

Again, that's not liberty, and it should tell you all you need to know about the myth of "delegated" powers. The government doesn't serve us, we serve the government. In the government's view, we are a resource to be exploited.

Real liberty has consequences. If you aren't willing to bear them, that is your election, but it doesn't change reality. The choice to exercise liberty doesn't guarantee that there won't be costs or obstacles, because every choice in life comes with costs and obstacles.

[ChartsandGrafs]

"Robbery" and "extortion" imply the violation of the law; the law does not exist without a political and administrative process whereby it is agreed upon, disseminated, and administered; this process has costs; those costs must be borne if we will that this process exists in the first place. Calling these costs "robbery" is putting the cart before the horse. There is no "robbery" without first paying the costs you characterize as "robbery."

This is still totally incorrect. Robbery and extortion imply a violation of *natural law*, not just man-made law. Meaning, even in a state of nature, robbery and extortion of other men will provoke a harsh correction, as they are violations of the laws of nature. No government, taxes, or administrative overhead is necessary to determine this or figure it out, either. It's simply intuitive.

Therefore, robbery and extortion are objectively immoral, unjust crimes, regardless of the presence of government and its man-made laws.

Also, property itself is a social construct, or a function of collective will. If you as a solitary individual believe that you have exclusive rights to a particular resource, and no one else agrees with you and contests your ownership via force, what is won is plunder not property. Property depends upon a social order that acknowledges and collaboratively protects it.

This is false. Property isn't property just because a bunch of people say so, it's property because a man mixes his time and labor to produce something of value out of nothing. And just because a group of people can steal it and call it "plunder" or "taxes" doesn't mean it isn't property.

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Real liberty has consequences. If you aren't willing to bear them, that is your election, but it doesn't change reality. The choice to exercise liberty doesn't guarantee that there won't be costs or obstacles, because every choice in life comes with costs and obstacles.

That's comical, no? I mean, based on your nebulous definition of liberty, we could say that the peasants of the old Soviet Union who lived under Joseph Stalin had liberty, since they always had the "liberty" to storm the machine gun nests and barbed-wire walls surrounding them.

Methinks you don't have a firm grasp of half the concepts you are discussing. No offense or anything.

[bluelang]

If one owns property, and he works together with others that own their own property to protect each other's property (included in that might be to higher others, perhaps non-owners, to help protect the property), then that would be a form of protection that exists without political delegation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Reeks of statism.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's comical, no? I mean, based on your nebulous definition of liberty, we could say that the peasants of the old Soviet Union who lived under Joseph Stalin had liberty, since they always had the "liberty" to storm the machine gun nests and barbed-wire walls surrounding them.

Methinks you don't have a firm grasp of half the concepts you are discussing. No offense or anything.

None taken.

I would advise specializing in one fallacy, in your case begging the question rather than amphiboly. Liberty might indicate the presence of an autonomous will capable of making its own choices which is the sense in which I have used it here, or it might refer to a state of affairs within which individual rights are acknowledged and protected collaboratively. But although the two senses are related, they cannot be used interchangeably, despite your attempt to do just that.

[Dreamliner]

If there is a God he's probably got Ayn Rand in time-out right now.

[Minister_of_Information]

This is still totally incorrect. Robbery and extortion imply a violation of *natural law*, not just man-made law. Meaning, even in a state of nature, robbery and extortion of other men will provoke a harsh correction, as they are violations of the laws of nature. No government, taxes, or administrative overhead is necessary to determine this or figure it out, either. It's simply intuitive.

Therefore, robbery and extortion are objectively immoral, unjust crimes, regardless of the presence of government and its man-made laws.



This is false. Property isn't property just because a bunch of people say so, it's property because a man mixes his time and labor to produce something of value out of nothing. And just because a group of people can steal it and call it "plunder" or "taxes" doesn't mean it isn't property.

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

I would suggest some additional observation of nature before attempting to formulate any more "natural laws." Does the eagle rob the osprey when he relieves him of his fish? Does the lion extort the leopard when he steals his antelope kill? And what about the creatures that are relieved of their lives under the *laws* of nature, has murder been committed as well?

[ChartsandGrafs]

I would suggest some additional observation of nature before attempting to formulate any more "natural laws." Does the eagle rob the osprey when he relieves him of his fish? Does the lion extort the leopard when he steals his antelope kill? And what about the creatures that are relieved of their lives under the *laws* of nature, has murder been committed as well?

Unlike humans, animals aren't capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so the laws of nature apply differently.

Imagine the state of human society if we stopped recognizing rights wholesale and went on pure instinct.

[Spurffelbow833]

Many regard Ayn Rand as a libertarian. She was, however, anything but. Basically, she despised libertarians and said so. Libertarians like Ron Paul, for example, are mostly just slightly radical religious conservatives. Others, like Charts here, are outright anarchists.

Burke, is this the standard method of persuasion with regard to objectivism? Pointing out to the listener that your founding matron hated him?

I never have considered the idea of going up to people and telling them that Lysander Spooner hated them but wanted them to be free. I don't worship Ron Paul, but he doesn't talk down to me. Plus I really do appreciate the time saving element of a message that can be summed up in a short paragraph rather than 1000 pages.

How can reason be a unifying force when everybody has his own idea of what is reasonable and what is not? Experience is a part of reason. It cannot be boiled down to a one size fits all philosophy. Freedom, on the other hand, is an absolute. Either you are free, or you are not.

[Burke]

Rand held that we should deal with one another by trade and not by force and that it's the purpose of govt to protect us from others who use force as a way of dealing with people who are doing nothing wrong themselves. But she developed this view as part of and as a consequence of a wider philosophy, of one that was founded on reason and self-interest.

Libertarians have taken her views on the use of force as an out of context primary, like a Bible commandment that we should use unthinkingly. This can be said to be exactly the kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) she opposed.

It's the kind of thinking that leads some lunatics to claim that the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear nukes.

Our highest value is our own life, more specifically, the life possible to is as a rational beings.

That means a morality of rational self-interest.

That means dealing with one another by trade and not by force.

That means having the right of self-defense.

That means having a way of insuring that the use of force is used in a way that we can all have confidence that it is being used in self-defense only.

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

"Competing govts," as libertarians advocate are no govt, no final authority.

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

But, of course, you have to have a population of rational people for anything to work.

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

And what happens when the government with a monopoly on force at its disposal, along with thousands of tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons, becomes tyrannical?

Then what? Kneel down and pray?

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Anarchists don't want to abolish the institution of government because it commits wrongs, anarchists want to abolish the institution of government because they believe that no person or group of persons should possess a legalized monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

If robbery, slavery, and murder are wrong for one, then they are wrong for all.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

Think about what you're saying here. If people are nothing more to you than "millions of little thugs", then how can it be considered productive to allow a small group of them to create a gigantic monopoly on the use of aggressive force? Do you think the creation of government automatically turns "little thugs" into "little angels"?

This is pretty simply stuff. If you believe people are generally good, then there's no need for government. If you believe people are generally bad, then the last thing you'd ever want to create is government.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

Why should any man be allowed to rule another man's life?

Can you provide a legitimate justification for this?

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

Tell me, what's rational about Ayn Rand advocating for voluntary free markets on one hand while advocating for the primacy of involuntary government monopolies on the other? That's not rational, it's nonsense.

As this thread has demonstrated, there's no morally or intellectually consistent argument against anarchy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

None taken.

I would advise specializing in one fallacy, in your case begging the question rather than amphiboly. Liberty might indicate the presence of an autonomous will capable of making its own choices which is the sense in which I have used it here, or it might refer to a state of affairs within which individual rights are acknowledged and protected collaboratively. But although the two senses are related, they cannot be used interchangeably, despite your attempt to do just that.

You can claim all the phantom fallacies you want, but the fact still remains that we don't have the liberty to revisit the delegation of power you fictitiously believe we gave government.

[Row6]

Humans are social animals who owe not only their survival but their culture - including concepts like "anarchy" - to the pack. Pretending we are autonomous beings who have some right to free associate and contract with other autonomous beings apart from social concerns is a modern philosophical luxury imagined by those who are as socialized and as dependent as the next guy - and more so than our ancestors - while riding the subway to work.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Humans are social animals who owe not only their survival but their culture - including concepts like "anarchy" - to the pack. Pretending we are autonomous beings who have some right to free associate and contract with other autonomous beings apart from social concerns is a modern philosophical luxury imagined by those who are as socialized and as dependent as the next guy - and more so than our ancestors - while riding the subway to work.

Take a look, Burke. Look at who's arguing on your side.

How much more obvious can it be that you've lost the debate?

[Burke]

There will always be people who want to misuse govt to exploit others.

And they will always rise to power from anarchy when it exists.

While the helpless little anarchists stand around whining that the problem is "government" instead of bad government.

Anarchists are little more than pacifists letting others do their fighting for them.

And stabbing them in the back while they do it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You speak of "government" and "bad government" as if there is a discernible difference between the two. There's not.

Government = legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force

Adding "bad" in front of "legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force" is redundant.

Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?

[Row6]

Take a look, Burke. Look at who's arguing on your side.

How much more obvious can it be that you've lost the debate?

I doubt Burke would agree with much of what I wrote, but then again, if you haven't noticed, you're on your own side by yourself almost all the time.

[Burke]

"Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?"

Good govt benefits everyone.

It's necessary for self-defense.

No one has the right to expect others to not act to defend themselves.

Whining that others do so is supporting criminals and other exploiters.

Referring to this as "lording over and ruling" others is silly rhetoric.

[Minister_of_Information]

Unlike humans, animals aren't capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so the laws of nature apply differently.

Imagine the state of human society if we stopped recognizing rights wholesale and went on pure instinct.

Careful, you mentioned both the recognition of rights and human society in the same sentence.

[Minister_of_Information]

Rand held that we should deal with one another by trade and not by force and that it's the purpose of govt to protect us from others who use force as a way of dealing with people who are doing nothing wrong themselves. But she developed this view as part of and as a consequence of a wider philosophy, of one that was founded on reason and self-interest.

Libertarians have taken her views on the use of force as an out of context primary, like a Bible commandment that we should use unthinkingly. This can be said to be exactly the kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) she opposed.

It's the kind of thinking that leads some lunatics to claim that the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear nukes.

Our highest value is our own life, more specifically, the life possible to is as a rational beings.

That means a morality of rational self-interest.

That means dealing with one another by trade and not by force.

That means having the right of self-defense.

That means having a way of insuring that the use of force is used in a way that we can all have confidence that it is being used in self-defense only.

That means having a govt that has a monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations.

A govt, by its nature, is a final authority.

"Competing govts," as libertarians advocate are no govt, no final authority.

Those who want to abolish the institution of govt because govts have and do commit wrongs may as well be seeking to abolish the medical profession because there are doctors who commit malpractice and otherwise fail.

Its easy to criticize govt. Few do it more than I do. But it's still better than anarchy, the fairy tail idea that millions of little thugs are better than a govt with the rule of law.

The alternative is always the rule of some over others.

But, of course, you have to have a population of rational people for anything to work.

That's why Rand stated that we must each have a rational philosophy.

I can't recall ever agreeing with you more than now.

[Minister_of_Information]

You can claim all the phantom fallacies you want, but the fact still remains that we don't have the liberty to revisit the delegation of power you fictitiously believe we gave government.

Of course we all have the choice individually and collectively of whether to go along with the status quo or not. Each one of us can choose to resist in any number of ways, from the quite subtle refusal to participate within the system to the overt cultivation of insurrection. So long as men have minds capable of holding convictions and acting upon them, we have the liberty to choose our course. And if our cause be just, we will prevail.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Good govt benefits everyone.

So monopolies provide goods and services cheaper and more efficiently than free market competition does?

So why not just have "good government" monopolize everything?

It's necessary for self-defense.

Based on what, exactly?

How did mankind survive prior to the formation of organized government? Wouldn't we already be extinct if government was necessary for self-defense? After all, early man had no legalized monopolies on aggressive violence.

No one has the right to expect others to not act to defend themselves.

Who says you need a legalized extortion racket to defend yourself?

Referring to this as "lording over and ruling" others is silly rhetoric.

Actually, it's accurate. Every government in the world represents a small group of people lording over and living at the expense of everyone else. Russia. Brazil. Saudi Arabia. China. United States. Mexico... It's all the same.

So, until you can provide some answers that jive with reality, the question still stands:

Can you provide a legitimate justification for one man lording over and ruling another man?

[Minister_of_Information]

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

That doesn't say much for you then, since you've repeatedly failed in multiple threads to make any headway against me on the subject of anarchy. Your historical knowledge, if we can call it that, doesn't seem to be helping you one bit here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Careful, you mentioned both the recognition of rights and human society in the same sentence.

What do I need to be careful of?

[gatorev12]

I think the question C&G seeks the answer for is: why must a private group of individuals with a mutual agreement to help each other protect their land necessarily be considered mafiaesque?

Because the line would eventually be blurred--and then cease to exist--between "voluntary choice" to "obligation."

A group of individuals volunteering their time/effort to protect their property/collective safety isn't inherently mafiaesque. But one must maintain active guard/vigilance against external threats/dangers at all times--regardless of whether one wants to or not. For a group of 5 (the original sample size), it would be extremely difficult to maintain the constant vigilance needed 24-7/365 for years upon years.

The options then are to band together in increasingly-greater numbers or, at some level, the degree of protection would slip.

[gatorev12]

Under natural law, property is property both in and out of any social order or set of man-made laws.

That's a completely inaccurate (or completely ignorant) understanding of what natural law is. Classic natural law--characterized as stemming from God, nature, or reason--is universal in nature and applies equally to all things (survival of the fittest; strength in numbers, etc)...positive laws are man-made constructs. Positive law and natural can overlap, but the two are fundamentally different.

Do wolves, bears, deer, moose, and guerrillas have recognized property rights? Of course not. Regardless of whether they reside on a particular piece of land and/or make use of it.

"property" as you've repeatedly been describing it in this thread is a man-made construct and thus, positive law.

[gatorev12]

It's like you've never cracked open a history book.

It's why anarchy is a fundamentally utopian construct. While I'm not really Rand's biggest fan, her little quip about anarchists being naive is completely accurate.

[Minister_of_Information]

That doesn't say much for you then, since you've repeatedly failed in multiple threads to make any headway against me on the subject of anarchy. Your historical knowledge, if we can call it that, doesn't seem to be helping you one bit here.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Minister_of_Information]

What do I need to be careful of?

The connection you've been avoiding.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The connection you've been avoiding.

Which would be what? That human beings are incapable of interacting with each other and forming societies without creating institutionalized extortion rackets?

[Minister_of_Information]

Which would be what? That human beings are incapable of interacting with each other and forming societies without creating institutionalized extortion rackets?

The connection between rights and society.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Lead me to something other than a retention pond adjacent to a sewage treatment plant and I'll drink.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The connection between rights and society.

Still vague, but how again does this connection necessitate or justify a violently coercive government extortion racket that must violate rights to protect rights?

This is still unclear.

[Minister_of_Information]

Still vague, but how again does this connection necessitate or justify a violently coercive government extortion racket that must violate rights to protect rights?

This is still unclear.

That's begging the question. And also contradictory.

[wargunfan]

You don't have to be a genius to understand that property rights entail some sort of government or "protection racket" (if you will) behind it.

The trick is to keep that government on a very strong and short leash, something we are losing the will to do.

[ChartsandGrafs]

That's begging the question. And also contradictory.

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

[Minister_of_Information]

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

You're begging the question because your argument presumes the truth of its internal analogies without proof. So your argument consists of redefining something you object to as equivalent to something thought to be bad by definition, then asking how the bad thing can be justified.

Your argument is also contradictory as it depends upon the existence of a quality of criminality that is more fundamental than its necessary preconditions such as law, government, and society.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You're begging the question because your argument presumes the truth of its internal analogies without proof. So your argument consists of redefining something you object to as equivalent to something thought to be bad by definition, then asking how the bad thing can be justified.

Your argument is also contradictory as it depends upon the existence of a quality of criminality that is more fundamental than its necessary preconditions such as law, government, and society.

Very well. What's the functional difference between:

- A government claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary taxes for the stated purpose of protection.

- A Mafia claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary extortion fees for the stated purpose of protection.

[Minister_of_Information]

Very well. What's the functional difference between:

- A government claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary taxes for the stated purpose of protection.

- A Mafia claiming dominion over a territory and people and violently collecting involuntary extortion fees for the stated purpose of protection.

My initial reaction is that a "mafia" can be considered to be a kind of shadow government that rules over a particular area of criminal enterprise. Where non-participants are affected, i.e., innocent civilians, the nature of the mafia is nothing less than criminal. Where participants are affected, the nature of the mafia is regulatory and quasi-judicial, though also infused with a criminal spirit and criminal methods. So if you really wanted to do so, you could compare the mafia to a legitimate government in the sense that it serves some of the same purposes albeit within the milieu of the criminal underworld. In other words, the criminal aspect of mafiahood is infused not via its resemblance to government proper, but rather by the nature of the mafia enterprise itself.

We might also postulate that particular kinds of governments possess an exploitative or parasitic nature themselves, something that seems quite close to the spirit of crime. This seems to be particularly true of despotisms and autocracies, coups-de-etat, and imperial governments. Basically in situations where legitimacy is replaced by force, and where the interests and even national identities of the governing class are inimical to that of the governed, we are very likely to get a government that is exploitative in a way that feels 'criminal', but this impression is a consequence of the acts and particular nature of these governments rather than the fundamental nature of government itself.

You asked earlier why government exists. Government exists because only a state can exist alongside other states without being gobbled up militarily, and a state requires a government. If we did not need to organize a state-scale common defense, there is no particular reason impelling the institution of a formal political organization. But it is necessary, and from it flows much of the cultural heritage which you appear to take for granted in your critique (as others have pointed out). It is true that the state itself presumes warfare. But without the state there is no writing, no law, no moral philosophy, no history, no technological and economic progress. Perhaps someday the state can be transcended, but that day is not yet.

[gatorev12]

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

An individual can avoid taxation and/or extortion by moving away from the areas controlled by either entity.

Unless the government and/or Mafia actively prevent one from leaving, one does have the free, conscious choice to avoid the items you're complaining about.

But the gaping hole in your logic is that you don't account for free will/choice. No one forces an individual to stay a US citizen under US laws...and no mafioso prevents a person from moving either.

[Burke]

The hard cold fact is that most of the time a bad govt is better than no govt., although there are exceptions. And most of the govts that have existed have been little more than the rule of thugs.

The US Constitution, however, as envisioned by the Founders, is a fabulous document. It's not the fault of the Founders that people pay little attention to it anymore.

We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, for e.g. that are generally enforced quite energetically.

Govt properly is an institution created by rational people to protect them from irrational people. But it is not a substitute for rationality. It's no coincidence that our govt, which in its founding principles is the greatest govt in history, came into existence during the 18th century Enlightenment, the most rational period in human history. And it's no coincidence that its decline has coincided with the so-called Progressive movement, which is really an anti-Enlighteent movement.

Anarchists aren't offering a solution to anything. They're just pretending that none of the problems govts properly exist to solve would exist were there no govts.

Which is total nonsense.

A proper govt exists to protect individual rights. The Mafia exists to violate individual rights. Saying that there is no difference between a proper govt and the Mafia is like saying there is no difference between a cop and an armed robber, even though cops exist to protect us from robbers.

And, as I've written here many times before, in a rational society there would be no taxation. Govt would be supported voluntarily and, in some instances, by charging fees for its services.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The US Constitution, however, as envisioned by the Founders, is a fabulous document. It's not the fault of the Founders that people pay little attention to it anymore.

The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper written up by a bunch of wealthy old men that basically says, "I am allowed to rob you". That's all it is.

It's an illegitimate document.

We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, for e.g. that are generally enforced quite energetically.

Yes, because the government doesn't like competition.

Govt properly is an institution created by rational people to protect them from irrational people.

This is, again, a myth. Government is created for the same reason Mafia crime syndicates are created - as a mechanism that allows one group of people to more efficiently exploit another group of people.

This is true for every government in history, including our own.

Anarchists aren't offering a solution to anything. They're just pretending that none of the problems govts properly exist to solve would exist were there no govts.

This is false. No anarchist I've ever talked to or read has said such a thing.

A proper govt exists to protect individual rights. The Mafia exists to violate individual rights.

Myth. Again, the real proper role of government is to serve as a mechanism by which one group of people can more efficiently exploit another group of people. It's the same reason Mafias exist.

Think about it. The very first thing any government must do is rob the very people it claims to protect. After all, the government is inherently broke. To function in any capacity, it must forcefully extract wealth from its own citizens.

If a government has to rob you to protect you from robbers, what's the point?

Saying that there is no difference between a proper govt and the Mafia is like saying there is no difference between a cop and an armed robber, even though cops exist to protect is from robbers.

Cops do not exist to protect us from robbers. This is another one of your many myths. In fact, cops have have no legal obligation to protect anyone from anything at all. Even our own kangaroo courts have stated as much.

For instance, look here:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Think about what that means, Burke. You're legally obligated to pay taxes to have the government "protect" you, when in reality, the government has no legal obligation to protect you at all. You're obligated to them, but they're not obligated to you.

So what are you really paying taxes for? Are you catching on to the scam yet?

And, as I've written here many times before, in a rational society there would be no taxation. Govt would be supported voluntarily and, in some instances, by charging fees for its services.

This is fantasy talk. If people don't have to pay taxes to a government entity, they won't. In a truly rational society, people would instead opt to purchase government services (security, arbitration, etc...) from free market competitors. You know this as well as I do. A "voluntary taxation government" would collapse just as quickly as a "voluntary extortion Mafia". The idea of such an absurd thing is third-grade nonsense.

[ChartsandGrafs]

An individual can avoid taxation and/or extortion by moving away from the areas controlled by either entity.

Unless the government and/or Mafia actively prevent one from leaving, one does have the free, conscious choice to avoid the items you're complaining about.

But the gaping hole in your logic is that you don't account for free will/choice. No one forces an individual to stay a US citizen under US laws...and no mafioso prevents a person from moving either.

So Mafia extortion rackets are justified because you have the option to flee the neighborhood? Is that really your argument?

[Row6]

How so? How is it contradictory? How is involuntary coercive taxation for government protection different than involuntary coercive extortion for Mafia protection?

With regrets for even bothering, you don't have a say in who leads the Gotti family, what "services" you might owe them for, nor do you enjoy due process when Tommie Three Fingers shows up for collections. By your theory all transactions which are backed by force - whether by law or a mob - are equal, and the lawless variety of your imaginary utopia is somehow preferable. In your dreams, maybe, but we're not part of them.

[wargunfan]

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

Who would establish said law and whose laws would be established in the case of disagreements about law and who would enforce said laws in the case of noncompliance??? Here in a nutshell we have the contradiction between the anarchic dream and the real and arbitrary nature of mankind.
C&G relies on a nonexistent ability of men to exist together on a voluntary and peaceable basis.
All government is a response to the nature of mankind ie. the propensity of men to murder and enslave each other.

[gatorev12]

So Mafia extortion rackets are justified because you have the option to flee the neighborhood? Is that really your argument?

I realize you ignore a lot of what people post...but I'm surprised you ignore what you yourself post.

Since this will likely confuse you, go back and read what my post was responding to; and for added measure, look up the word "involuntary."

[ChartsandGrafs]

With regrets for even bothering, you don't have a say in who leads the Gotti family, what "services" you might owe them for, nor do you enjoy due process when Tommie Three Fingers shows up for collections. By your theory all transactions which are backed by force - whether by law or a mob - are equal, and the lawless variety of your imaginary utopia is somehow preferable. In your dreams, maybe, but we're not part of them.

So if the Gotti family allowed you to vote for the henchmen who administer their extortion racket around the neighborhood, would the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified? If the Gotti family allowed you to to choose from among their various services (protection, arbitration, kidnapping, drug trafficking, etc...), would the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified? If the Gotti family gave you "due process" and allowed you to complain to one of their hand-picked judges who's also on the Mafia payroll, who the Mafia's extortion racket all of a sudden become justified?

Of course not, and neither does the government's extortion racket.

Mafia = government

There's no function difference. There are cosmetic differences, but they both work the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I realize you ignore a lot of what people post...but I'm surprised you ignore what you yourself post.

Since this will likely confuse you, go back and read what my post was responding to; and for added measure, look up the word "involuntary."

I read it, thanks. So why did you avoid answering my question?

If I forcefully invade your home and give you the voluntary choice to either stay and die or to flee, would my invasion of your home become justified? After all, I'm giving you a choice. You can leave and go somewhere else. Nobody would be forcing you to stay. Love it or leave it, right?

So how is this any difference from the way a government or Mafia operates. You have the choice to leave, so it's justified, right?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Who would establish said law and whose laws would be established in the case of disagreements about law and who would enforce said laws in the case of noncompliance???

Everybody would enforce the law, and disagreements would be handled through arbitration.

Here in a nutshell we have the contradiction between the anarchic dream and the real and arbitrary nature of mankind.
C&G relies on a nonexistent ability of men to exist together on a voluntary and peaceable basis.

How does the existence of government solve this problem? Has government created any kind of lasting peace? We've had nothing but thousands and thousands of years of violence, war, murder, slavery, rape, and genocide.

If government solves the problem of men being incapable of existing together on a voluntary and peaceable basis, how come we still have all these problems?

All government is a response to the nature of mankind ie. the propensity of men to murder and enslave each other.

If government is a response to men murdering and enslaving each other, why do we still have murder and slavery?

None of your arguments are supported by reality.

[gatorev12]

I read it, thanks. So why did you avoid answering my question?


Apparently not since you're still having difficulty understanding the differences between "voluntary" and "involuntary".

So how is this any difference from the way a government or Mafia operates. You have the choice to leave, so it's justified, right?


This question is almost too sophomoric to answer--but suffice it to say, that you're grotesquely over-simplifying things here and, once again, failing to distinguish between "voluntary" and "involuntary" interactions.

The justification/rationalization for government is based upon "the social contract". Now, before you start attacking that--implied contracts *are* recognized in common law and in statutory law. And if you don't agree with your responsibilities under the social contract, you *do* have the voluntary choice to opt out (leave) without penalty. Hence, the justification for government is based upon voluntary choice/consent.

The justification for the Mafia is most often because they provide a good/service that you can't get by any other means. Which would, again, be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual.

Involuntary interactions with the Mafia are based on violence or the threat of it. Pay them--or else. You can't leave without some type of violence being meted out against you.

Since that probably went over your head, here's a more simple analogy: comparing an apple to an orange and then trying to argue that they both look and taste the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The justification/rationalization for government is based upon "the social contract". Now, before you start attacking that--implied contracts *are* recognized in common law and in statutory law.

Irrelevant, as contracts not voluntarily agreed to are illegitimate.

And if you don't agree with your responsibilities under the social contract, you *do* have the voluntary choice to opt out (leave) without penalty. Hence, the justification for government is based upon voluntary choice/consent.

A contract that offers you a choice, neither of which you'd choose voluntarily, is not legitimate. If I invade your home and offer you the choice to stay and die or leave and save your life, this wouldn't be a legitimate contract.

Sorry, point rejected.

The justification for the Mafia is most often because they provide a good/service that you can't get by any other means. Which would, again, be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual.

What service is that, exactly?

Involuntary interactions with the Mafia are based on violence or the threat of it. Pay them--or else. You can't leave without some type of violence being meted out against you.

False. Interactions with both the Mafia and government are the same. In both cases, you have the option to leave.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is too easy for me. Government apologists are completely incapable of explaining any meaningful differences between governments and Mafia crime syndicates. And why? Because there are no differences.

[gatorev12]

This is too easy for me. Government apologists are completely incapable of explaining any meaningful differences between governments and Mafia crime syndicates. And why? Because there are no differences.

Sure, it's easy because you ignore facts, reason, and honest debate.

Anything is "easy" when you completely ignore any attempt at rational debate.

I can sit here and make the claim that Disney apologists are incapable of proving me wrong since you've yet to give a SINGLE argument to counter anything I'm saying.

So cool. We've established you're a Disney shill that's obsessed with Snow White and the Jonas brothers. Have fun with that.

[Minister_of_Information]

This is known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[gatorev12]

None of your arguments are supported by reality.

Probably the most ironic post of the year since your argument/viewpoint is so completely unsupported by reality, it's honestly surprising anyone would advocate for it.

Reality is that humanity has had plenty examples of anarchy in the course of history...with current examples being Somalia and most of Afghanistan.

Even if 97% of people were committed to honesty and "the golden rule"--the 3% of humans who weren't would quickly dominate over the rest due to their willingness to not abide by the rules.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Maybe the government apologists can tell us more about this notion of a mythical "social contract".

[Minister_of_Information]

I didn't realize the Constitution was mythological.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Not really, no. But if calling out phantom fallacies helps you to avoid discussion, have at it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I didn't realize the Constitution was mythological.

I didn't know the U.S. Constitution was a "social contract". That's interesting.

If I move in next door to you and draw up a "Neighborly Constitution" that says I am allowed to rob you, would it be a legitimate document? What if I get all the other neighbors to agree and sign it? Does it automatically become legitimate then?

[Minister_of_Information]

Not really, no. But if calling out phantom fallacies helps you to avoid discussion, have at it.

Your history is well documented.

[Minister_of_Information]

I didn't know the U.S. Constitution was a "social contract". That's interesting.

If I move in next door to you and draw up a "Neighborly Constitution" that says I am allowed to rob you, would it be a legitimate document? What if I get all the other neighbors to agree and sign it? Does it automatically become legitimate then?

Taxation is not robbery.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Your history is well documented.

Well, as they say, history is written by the victors.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Taxation is not robbery.

It's the exact same as robbery. You put a gun a man's head and tell him that he must pay up or else, and that's robbery. Just because you call it "taxation" or "extortion" doesn't mean it's not a form of robbery.

[Minister_of_Information]

Well, as they say, history is written by the victors.

Let me know if you have any requests for your epitaph.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Let me know if you have any requests for your epitaph.

What's the point? Any request I make you'll replace with, "that's a fallacy!".

[Minister_of_Information]

It's the exact same as robbery. You put a gun a man's head and tell him that he must pay up or else, and that's robbery. Just because you call it "taxation" or "extortion" doesn't mean it's not a form of robbery.

Law enforcement is not crime. In fact it is very nearly the antipode of crime. But it's not like that hasn't been pointed out already.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Law enforcement is not crime. In fact it is very nearly the antipode of crime. But it's not like that hasn't been pointed out already.

Nonsense. Forcing a man at gunpoint to pay for the enforcement of laws is a crime called "armed robbery". It doesn't matter if you write on a piece of paper that it's allowed or "the law", it's still just armed robbery by any objective measure.

[Minister_of_Information]

What's the point? Any request I make you'll replace with, "that's a fallacy!".
Charts and Grafs
2012-2013
"He Begged The Question"

[Minister_of_Information]

Nonsense. Forcing a man at gunpoint to pay for the enforcement of laws is a crime called "armed robbery". It doesn't matter if you write on a piece of paper that it's allowed or "the law", it's still just armed robbery by any objective measure.

The objective measure of robbery is the law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The objective measure of robbery is the law.

And the objective measure of man-made law is natural law, and armed robbery is considered an unjust crime under natural law.

Sorry, but morality is objective and not relative to the laws men decide to create.

[gatorev12]

Maybe the government apologists can tell us more about this notion of a mythical "social contract".

What's the point? Even if we did, you'd say "point rejected." Which is usually what happens when someone's already lost and can't come up with anything else to say.

To be direct: do you deny that there is such a thing as an implied contract? Yes or no

[gatorev12]

And the objective measure of man-made law is natural law, and armed robbery is considered an unjust crime under natural law.

Sorry, but morality is objective and not relative to the laws men decide to create.

Once again demonstrating an ignorance of what natural law is--and what positive law is.

You need to be better educated if you wish to have a philosophical discussion.

[Minister_of_Information]

And the objective measure of man-made law is natural law, and armed robbery is considered an unjust crime under natural law.

Sorry, but morality is objective and not relative to the laws men decide to create.

I see you haven't lost the ability to make unsupported claims.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The social contract defined and destroyed in under five minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU

[ChartsandGrafs]

I see you haven't lost the ability to make unsupported claims.

Sort of like your:

"The objective measure of robbery is the law."

[Minister_of_Information]

Sort of like your:

"The objective measure of robbery is the law."

Do you want the statute?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Once again demonstrating an ignorance of what natural law is--and what positive law is.

You need to be better educated if you wish to have a philosophical discussion.

If being "educated" means believing in mythical "social contracts", no thanks.

It's clearly not doing you any good here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Do you want the statute?

What makes the statute and its creation objective?

[Minister_of_Information]

What makes the statute and its creation objective?

Because its existence cannot be disputed.

[ChartsandGrafs]

MOI, if you lived in a state of nature, in the absence of government and man-made statutes, would you allow other men to rob you?

If not, why? There's no law against it, right?

Would you mind answering this question? Would you allow other men to rob you in a state of nature?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Because its existence cannot be disputed.

So if I write down on a piece of paper that rape is good and legal, then this becomes the objective standard by which rape is measured? I mean, once it's on paper, it's existence cannot be disputed, right?

[Minister_of_Information]

MOI, if you lived in a state of nature, in the absence of government and man-made statutes, would you allow other men to rob you?

If not, why? There's no law against it, right?

The state of nature is a state of war.

[Minister_of_Information]

So if I write down on a piece of paper that rape is good and legal, then this becomes the objective standard by which rape is measured? I mean, once it's on paper, it's existence cannot be disputed, right?

Yes.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The state of nature is a state of war.

Well, the United States has been in a constant state of perpetual war for decades.

Might that mean we are currently in a state of nature as well?

[Minister_of_Information]

Well, the United States has been in a constant state of perpetual war for decades.

Might that mean we are currently in a state of nature as well?

Do not be tempted to affirm the consequent.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes.

A monumental admission on your part. Thanks for your honesty.

So, according to you, the objective measure of any act of man at all is whatever we say it is. In other words, morality isn't objective, it's subjective. It's all just relative. If a group of men create a government based on slavery and genocide, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, even if they torture and kill millions of innocent people.

I think I understand better now why you are a proponent of forced military servitude.

[Minister_of_Information]

A monumental admission on your part. Thanks for your honesty.

So, according to you, the objective measure of any act of man at all is whatever we say it is. In other words, morality isn't objective, it's subjective. It's all just relative. If a group of men create a government based on slavery and genocide, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, even if they torture and kill millions of innocent people.

I think I understand better now why you are a proponent of forced military servitude.

Wrong. There is a distinction between morality and the law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Do not be tempted to affirm the consequent.

Relax, it's just a question.

Perhaps we never really left the state of nature. Based on some of your arguments here, one could easily say we live under the law of the jungle. After all, the objective measure of any act is whatever we say it is. There is no right or wrong. Morality is simply relative.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Wrong. There is a distinction between morality and the law.

What is the distinction?

[Minister_of_Information]

Relax, it's just a question.

Perhaps we never really left the state of nature. Based on some of your arguments here, one could easily say we live under the law of the jungle. After all, the objective measure of any act is whatever we say it is. There is no right or wrong. Morality is simply relative.

The objective measure of the law is the law.

[Minister_of_Information]

What is the distinction?

Morality is intuitive knowledge. The law is objective knowledge.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The objective measure of the law is the law.

Yes, but if the law is whatever we want it to be, moral concerns be damned, wouldn't the objective measure of the law really be subjective?

[Minister_of_Information]

Yes, but if the law is whatever we want it to be, moral concerns be damned, wouldn't the objective measure of the law really be subjective?

It's written down. It says what it says.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Robbery is only robbery if government says it is.
Rape is only rape if government says it is.
Murder is only murder if government says it is.
Slavery is only slavery if government says it is.

Is this correct so far?

[Minister_of_Information]

Robbery is only robbery if government says it is.
Rape is only rape if government says it is.
Murder is only murder if government says it is.
Slavery is only slavery if government says it is.

Is this correct so far?

Legal constructs are defined by the law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Legal constructs are defined by the law.

I take that as a "yes".

Is this correct?

[Minister_of_Information]

I take that as a "yes".

Is this correct?

Criminal acts are defined by the law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Criminal acts are defined by the law.

You believe criminal acts are defined by law, and since law is defined by man, then the answer would be "yes", correct?

Murder, for instance, is only murder if government says it is?

[wargunfan]

Everybody would enforce the law, and disagreements would be handled through arbitration.



How does the existence of government solve this problem? Has government created any kind of lasting peace? We've had nothing but thousands and thousands of years of violence, war, murder, slavery, rape, and genocide.

If government solves the problem of men being incapable of existing together on a voluntary and peaceable basis, how come we still have all these problems?



If government is a response to men murdering and enslaving each other, why do we still have murder and slavery?

None of your arguments are supported by reality.

Charts, you live in relative peace and safety. I use the term relative on purpose. Your idea that in an anarchic society men would deal peaceably with each other is nothing more than a dream. It has never happened and until the nature of mankind changes it never will.
Of course we live in a relative world. It has ever been thus. So here you sit at your computer, without any rational fear of someone breaking down your door and murdering you, typing away about a society in which all men would respect the autonomy of other men.
Living in a land of relative safety and order is about the best we can do. Take away the order of this present society and the likelihood of someone or group breaking down your door and killing you rises exponentially. But by all means dream on.

[Minister_of_Information]

You believe criminal acts are defined by law, and since law is defined by man, then the answer would be "yes", correct?

Murder, for instance, is only murder if government says it is?

Murder is a crime defined by the law. The law was written by man.

[gatorev12]

Once again...charts, is there such thing as an implied contract? Yes or no?

I cannot make this question any more simple than that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts, you live in relative peace and safety. I use the term relative on purpose.

Sorry, but I disagree. I neither live in peace nor safety. I live under a government at war with its own people. I live in fear of the police and other government agents. Our government locks up millions of people for nothing more than committing non-violent crimes. People are in jail for smoking a natural plant. People are in jail for selling raw milk.

This isn't "peace and safety", it's terrorism.

Your idea that in a anarchic society men would deal peaceably with each other is nothing more that a dream.

Nice straw man. I never once claimed an anarchic society would exist without conflict.

It has never happened and until the nature of mankind changes it never will.

Nonsense. The problem isn't the "nature" of mankind. The problem is more of a philosophical and spiritual issue.

Of course we live in a relative world. It has ever been thus. So here you sit at your computer, without any rational fear of someone breaking down your door and murdering you, typing away about a society in which all men would respect the autonomy of other men. Living in a land of relative safety and order is about the best we can do.

LOL, "relative safety and order". Your government is buying up billions of rounds for its domestic agencies and has been busily erecting a police state over the last ten years, but no, there's nothing to fear. Everything is just fine.

Go back to watching your TV and forget the reality you in a little more.

Take away the order of this present society and the likelihood of someone or group breaking down your door and killing you rises exponentially. But by all means dream on.

You mean, kind of like this poor guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70hOn8fCsfE

[ChartsandGrafs]

Once again...charts, is there such thing as an implied contract? Yes or no?

I cannot make this question any more simple than that.

Of course there is such a thing, just as there is such a thing as coercive taxation.

That doesn't mean such contracts have any legitimate basis.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Murder is a crime defined by the law. The law was written by man.

So then yes, murder is only murder if government says it is.

If you lived in a state of nature in the absence of government and man-made laws, would you allow someone to murder you? If not, why? How would you know you were being unjustly murdered without the government telling you so?

[Minister_of_Information]

So then yes, murder is only murder if government says it is.

If you lived in a state of nature in the absence of government and man-made laws, would you allow someone to murder you? If not, why? How would you know you were being unjustly murdered without the government telling you so?

There is no murder without the law, only war.

[gatorev12]

Of course there is such a thing, just as there is such a thing as coercive taxation.

That doesn't mean such contracts have any legitimate basis.

I didn't ask about the social contract, I asked about implied contracts. Which you've acknowledged exist.

Ok. Are you now trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate?

What makes a "legitimate" contract? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

[wargunfan]

What happened to you, Charts. Did you do time for possession or did the government grab you for non payment of taxes? Your hatred of this government is visceral and not merely philosophical. What did they do to you?

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is no murder without the law, only war.

At what specific point does something become the law? Can you be specific?

[gatorev12]

If you lived in a state of nature in the absence of government and man-made laws, would you allow someone to murder you? If not, why? How would you know you were being unjustly murdered without the government telling you so?

Again, please read up on what natural law is (and isn't) and then get back to us.

You're trying to argue "natural law" in situations where it's clearly positive law. And, btw, positive law doesn't have to be government-made law either. Take your utopian anarchic concept of "arbitration courts" handing down decisions. Their rulings would also be positive law (ie: man-made).

[ChartsandGrafs]

What happened to you, Charts. Did you do time for possession or did the government grab you for non payment of taxes? Your hatred of this government is visceral and not merely philosophical. What did they do to you?

This discussion isn't about me.

Can you or can you not refute anything I said in my previous response to you?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Again, please read up on what natural law is (and isn't) and then get back to us.

You're trying to argue "natural law" in situations where it's clearly positive law. And, btw, positive law doesn't have to be government-made law either. Take your utopian anarchic concept of "arbitration courts" handing down decisions. Their rulings would also be positive law (ie: man-made).

Nice dodge.

[gatorev12]

What happened to you, Charts. Did you do time for possession or did the government grab you for non payment of taxes? Your hatred of this government is visceral and not merely philosophical. What did they do to you?

Years of listening/watching Disney movies, Disney radio, and the Disney channel. Subliminal messages embedded deep within the lyrics of most Disney songs contain detailed instructions about how to question governmental authority by exploiting their most basic fear: no more Disney due to government interference. Researchers are trying to decipher the code as we speak, but sometime between Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, Disney shifted from a passive-aggressive philosophy into a full-out blitz against the government. For the Mouse's minions, they dutifully carry out his instructions--with the promise of joining the Mousketeer Club as their hard-earned reward.

It's all part of the Mouse's dastardly plot to usurp the government and obtain complete power/control.

[gatorev12]

Nice dodge.

If you're going to argue moral concepts are universal in natural law, then it's pretty clear you are completely ignorant about what natural law is--not to mention you probably don't get out much. Suffice it to say, you won't get universal agreement on a definition of "murder" by talking to 10 Christians, 10 atheists, 10 Muslims, 10 Buddists, 10 Jews, 10 Satanists, etc etc. A similar definition? Perhaps. But certainly not a universal one that everyone would agree to abide by.

And natural law, by definition, is universal in nature.

And speaking of dodging...how about answering the question about implied contracts. To combat your inevitable laziness, I'll repost:

Ok. Are you now trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate?

What makes a "legitimate" contract? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6332933#ixzz2Ia7xhmGz

Once again, a yes or no question. Shouldn't be too difficult.

[Minister_of_Information]

At what specific point does something become the law? Can you be specific?

When it is enacted by a legitimate legislative authority and published for the purpose of enforcement.

[ChartsandGrafs]

When it is enacted by a legitimate legislative authority and published for the purpose of enforcement.

What makes the legislative authority legitimate?

[Minister_of_Information]

What makes the legislative authority legitimate?

Consensus

[ChartsandGrafs]

And speaking of dodging...how about answering the question about implied contracts.

Once again, a yes or no question. Shouldn't be too difficult.

LOL. The answer is contained within this paragraph of yours. See if you can find it:

Years of listening/watching Disney movies, Disney radio, and the Disney channel. Subliminal messages embedded deep within the lyrics of most Disney songs contain detailed instructions about how to question governmental authority by exploiting their most basic fear: no more Disney due to government interference. Researchers are trying to decipher the code as we speak, but sometime between Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, Disney shifted from a passive-aggressive philosophy into a full-out blitz against the government. For the Mouse's minions, they dutifully carry out his instructions--with the promise of joining the Mousketeer Club as their hard-earned reward.

It's all part of the Mouse's dastardly plot to usurp the government and obtain complete power/control.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Consensus

How does the legislative authority go about determining this consensus? What percentage of people constitutes a consensus?

[gatorev12]

LOL. The answer is contained within this paragraph of yours. See if you can find it:

So...you have no answer.

Gotcha.

[Minister_of_Information]

How does the legislative authority go about determining this consensus? What percentage of people constitutes a consensus?

Consensus is not determined by the legislative authority it is determined by its underlying social constituency.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Consensus is not determined by the legislative authority it is determined by its underlying social constituency.

How does the constituency go about determining this consensus? What's the specific mechanism? What percentage of people constitutes a consensus?

[ChartsandGrafs]

So...you have no answer.

Gotcha.

LOL. When I figure out how to speak clown I'll get back to you.

[gatorev12]

LOL. When I figure out how to speak clown I'll get back to you.

I can understand how reading English would be difficult for you. That's why I've simplified my questions to the most elementary level of response: yes or no.

So, again:

Are you trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate? Yes or no.

What makes a "legitimate" contract anyway? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I can understand how reading English would be difficult for you. That's why I've simplified my questions to the most elementary level of response: yes or no.

So, again:

Are you trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate? Yes or no.

What makes a "legitimate" contract anyway? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

You tell me. You're the one trying to make a case for the "social contract".

Well, what's your case?

[bluelang]

I think since Charts came back about 30% of all TH posts are his.

Maybe time to take a ****ing pill already.

[gatorev12]

You tell me. You're the one trying to make a case for the "social contract".

Well, what's your case?

Once again, your reading comprehension skills are being called into question. Nothing in my questions asked about the social contract.

They were "yes/no" questions asking about an implied contract--which you've already admit exist and I'm trying to get to the bottom of your understanding of what an implied contract is/isn't. I really can't make a question any more simple than a "yes/no" response on your part. If this is taxing your brain a little too much, then you clearly don't have the ability to comprehend the topic and should probably stop posting lest you overextend your abilities.

So, once again:

Are you trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate? Yes or no.

What makes a "legitimate" contract anyway? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Once again, your reading comprehension skills are being called into question. Nothing in my questions asked about the social contract.

They were "yes/no" questions asking about an implied contract--which you've already admit exist and I'm trying to get to the bottom of your understanding of what an implied contract is/isn't. I really can't make a question any more simple than a "yes/no" response on your part. If this is taxing your brain a little too much, then you clearly don't have the ability to comprehend the topic and should probably stop posting lest you overextend your abilities.

So, once again:

Are you trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate? Yes or no.

What makes a "legitimate" contract anyway? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

So, in other words, "social contracts" are legitimate because... you don't have an answer?

Is that what you're saying?

[gatorev12]

So, in other words, "social contracts" are legitimate because... you don't have an answer?

Is that what you're saying?

Oh, I see. When you have absolutely nothing to say, you just lie and make things up, right?

That way you can never "lose"!? Genius my man!!!

This whole time I had thought you had extreme difficulty reading basic English and couldn't answer a simple "yes/no" question. That clarifies things immensely--you *can* read, you just don't know why you're being asked to answer two questions.

I'll give you a hint: your answers have something to do with the social contracts, but I'll wait to make the connection a little later once you answer those two questions about implied contracts (gotta learn to add and subtract before you can tackle long division and multiplication). I've broken this down into as simple an explanation as possible to make it easier for you.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Oh, I see. When you have absolutely nothing to say, you just lie and make things up, right?

That way you can never "lose"!? Genius my man!!!

This whole time I had thought you had extreme difficulty reading basic English and couldn't answer a simple "yes/no" question. That clarifies things immensely--you *can* read, you just don't know why you're being asked to answer two questions.

I'll give you a hint: your answers have something to do with the social contracts, but I'll wait to make the connection a little later once you answer those two questions about implied contracts (gotta learn to add and subtract before you can tackle long division and multiplication). I've broken this down into as simple an explanation as possible to make it easier for you.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/000/151/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

[Minister_of_Information]

How does the constituency go about determining this consensus? What's the specific mechanism? What percentage of people constitutes a consensus?

There is no specific mechanism, but there are measurable symptoms of consensus.

[gatorev12]

See? I post multiple sentences and your brain shuts down to cartoon characters. That's why I've repeatedly treated you with little kiddie questions on this thread to not overwhelm you.

Once again:

Are you trying to say that implied contracts aren't legitimate? Yes or no.

What makes a "legitimate" contract anyway? Does it *HAVE* to be in writing, on a piece of paper, signed by both parties, EVERY time in order to be valid? Yes or no.

There can only be four ways to answer:
1. yes/yes
2. yes/no
3. no/yes
4. no/no

I honestly don't care which of those four you come back with...but your comical avoidance of the question raises the separate question of why? Are you scared? Do two "yes/no" questions really terrify you that much?

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is no specific mechanism, but there are measurable symptoms of consensus.

What do you figure they are? How do you accurately measure consensus?

[wgbgator]

What do you figure they are? How do you accurately measure consensus?

Probably at the point where widespread cooperation is still preferable to internecine violence.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Probably at the point where widespread cooperation is still preferable to internecine violence.

Kind of the same way a woman being held down by a bigger, stronger rapist might decide to "go along to get along" to spare herself any more violent harm than necessary?

[wgbgator]

Kind of the same way a woman being held down by a bigger, stronger rapist might decide to "go along to get along" to spare herself any more violent harm than necessary?

No, not like that at all. When you want people to "wake up" what do you mean? I've always assumed you meant the fracturing of consensus of the legitimatacy of this government, or the idea of being governed at all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, not like that at all. When you want people to "wake up" what do you mean? I've always assumed you meant the fracturing of consensus of the legitimatacy of this government, or the idea of being governed at all.

Wake up, as in open your eyes, think critically, and snap out of the dreamworld you've been living in. I don't think I understand the connection to consensus, though.

Where are you going with this?

[wgbgator]

Wake up, as in open your eyes, think critically, and snap out of the dreamworld you've been living in. I don't think I understand the connection to consensus, though.

Where are you going with this?

Presumably, you want some kind of action beyond "critical thinking" about the situtation.

[Minister_of_Information]

What do you figure they are? How do you accurately measure consensus?

The most accurate measure is a lack of rebellion, but it is not the only one.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Presumably, you want some kind of action beyond "critical thinking" about the situtation.

Honestly, no, my focus is on the awareness aspect of the reality situation. I don't know what the correct action is, and I'm certainly not going to act on my own, as that would be akin to suicide.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The most accurate measure is a lack of rebellion, but it is not the only one.

So if a Mafia crime syndicate lays claim to a neighborhood and sets up a violent extortion racket, the lack of a rebellion on the part of the people in the neighborhood signifies consent to the extortion racket?

Just the same, if a woman decides to not fight off a rapist out of fear that it will get her hurt even worse, it's tantamount to consent to being raped?

[gatorev12]

Funny, you'd think someone who's sooo interested in "asking questions" would have some familiarity with/exposure to answering them.

Really, the only conclusions at this point is that Charts is either scared of answering the question and it's follow-ons (because they expose the hollowness of his reasoning and arguments) or that he still hasn't learned from his past trolling and has returned to the TH board with a vengeance.

[Minister_of_Information]

So if a Mafia crime syndicate lays claim to a neighborhood and sets up a violent extortion racket, the lack of a rebellion on the part of the people in the neighborhood signifies consent to the extortion racket?

Just the same, if a woman decides, to not fight off a rapist out of fear that it will get her hurt even worse, it's tantamount to consent to being raped?

There is a problem with the mafia analogy, which is that it can only exist in the context of crime, which would need to be defined by laws enacted by a supraordinate authority. A mafia without this context of a law to flout is simply a despotic regime, though one potentially competent to enact laws providing it meets the other preconditions of publication and enforcement. Think Code of Hammurabi.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Funny, you'd think someone who's sooo interested in "asking questions" would have some familiarity with/exposure to answering them.

Really, the only conclusions at this point is that Charts is either scared of answering the question and it's follow-ons (because they expose the hollowness of his reasoning and arguments) or that he still hasn't learned from his past trolling and has returned to the TH board with a vengeance.

http://i31.tinypic.com/9iqu11.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is a problem with the mafia analogy, which is that it can only exist in the context of crime, which would need to be defined by laws enacted by a supraordinate authority. A mafia without this context of a law to flout is simply a despotic regime, though one potentially competent to enact laws providing it meets the other preconditions of publication and enforcement. Think Code of Hammurabi.

That's what we're discussing here. The legitimacy and creation of a supraordinate authority. If the Mafia crime syndicate draws up a "Constitution" and claims itself the rightful government, does it automatically become so, with or without "consensus"? If consensus is required, how is it measured, exactly?

I find it interesting that we have to go in circles here to pinpoint when a would-be government becomes legitimate or not. No one seems to have an answer, which kind of proves my point.

[wgbgator]

Honestly, no, my focus is on the awareness aspect of the reality situation. I don't know what the correct action is, and I'm certainly not going to act on my own, as that would be akin to suicide.

So you want to agitate people without offering a course of action? Yeah, no wonder you get labeled a "troll." I mean that as an observation, not an insult.

[gatorev12]

That's what we're discussing here. The legitimacy and creation of a supraordinate authority. If the Mafia crime syndicate draws up a "Constitution" and claims itself the rightful government, does it automatically become so, with or without "consensus"? If consensus is required, how is it measured, exactly?

I find it interesting that we have to go in circles here to pinpoint when a would-be government becomes legitimate or not. No one seems to have an answer, which kind of proves my point.

And by "discussing" you mean you do all the talking, right?

Ignoring everything that stands in stark opposition to your fantasyland with unicorns and a whiskey spring.

The fact you're not answering direct questions on a topic you brought up kinda proves the general consensus around here that you're nothing but a troll and not interested in any semblance of informed discussion/debate.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So you want to agitate people without offering a course of action? Yeah, no wonder you get labeled a "troll." I mean that as an observation, not an insult.

The course of action is to wake up, as there can be no further course of action without that first step.

Just so you know, I consider it a personal compliment when those of your ilk refer to me as a "troll", much the same way as Steve Spurrier reveled in the hatred of opposing SEC coaches throughout the 90s. I couldn't respect myself if you authoritarians liked me and said nice things about me.

[gatorev12]

You flatter yourself, as all contrarians tend to do.

Most psychiatrists who study internet trolls and the people who engage in such activity have found that they suffer from severe narcissism and engage in attention-seeking behavior because they are denied attention in real life.

So while I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind, those of us who deal with real-life facts and realities can see you failing to mount even a rudimentary defense of your positions in the face of questioning.

[wgbgator]

The course of action is to wake up, as there can be no further course of action without that first step.

Just so you know, I consider it a personal compliment when those of your ilk refer to me as a "troll", much the same way as Steve Spurrier reveled in the hatred of opposing SEC coaches throughout the 90s. I couldn't respect myself if you authoritarians liked me and said nice things about me.

Sure that may be the first step, but agitation only really works if you can direct that energy somewhere, like say a movement or course of action. Otherwise you're just getting people fired up but probably reinforcing their own viewpoints when you can't supply anything beyond that. You may be unintentionally aiding the state. That would be ironic.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Sure that may be the first step, but agitation only really works if you can direct that energy somewhere, like say a movement or course of action. Otherwise you're just getting people fired up but probably reinforcing their own viewpoints when you can't supply anything beyond that. You may be unintentionally aiding the state. That would be ironic.

Judging by the recent actions of the U.S. government (NDAA, internet regulation, domestic surveillance, gun control, fusion centers, etc...) , I highly doubt they see people like me - highly vocal anti-federalist dissidents - as an asset to their totalitarian cause. On the contrary, it looks like they are setting up a system in which they can better deal with people like me.

[ChartsandGrafs]

those of us who deal with real-life facts and realities...

LOL.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535

[gatorev12]

LOL.


Fittingly, this would be your only response.

You, sir, are a credit to internet trolls everywhere. Why, even a simple "yes/no" question that the most elementary humans aged 2-4 years old can answer seems difficult for you. I wonder why that is.

If anything, that ironically only helps prove my observation you're a Disney shill since the only thing your brain responds to are cartoon caricatures with silly captions. :grin:

[Minister_of_Information]

That's what we're discussing here. The legitimacy and creation of a supraordinate authority. If the Mafia crime syndicate draws up a "Constitution" and claims itself the rightful government, does it automatically become so, with or without "consensus"? If consensus is required, how is it measured, exactly?

I find it interesting that we have to go in circles here to pinpoint when a would-be government becomes legitimate or not. No one seems to have an answer, which kind of proves my point.

I am using "legitimate" to convey a popular understanding that an authority is competent to enact laws, not that that authority is necessarily just or preferable to other regimes. Basically it just means that the people find the laws credible as constructs. The regime itself might be despotic, but it enacts credible laws.

[wargunfan]

This discussion isn't about me.

Can you or can you not refute anything I said in my previous response to you?

There is nothing to refute. You see the world through a distorted lens. You dream unreachable dreams. You will not see reason and are immune to logical persuasion. Everyone is deluded but you.

Your dream of anarchic utopia is a delusion of grandeur and you have a classic persecution complex. I will let you make the diagnosis.

[wgbgator]

Judging by the recent actions of the U.S. government (NDAA, internet regulation, domestic surveillance, gun control, fusion centers, etc...) , I highly doubt they see people like me - highly vocal anti-federalist dissidents - as an asset to their totalitarian cause. On the contrary, it looks like they are setting up a system in which they can better deal with people like me.

I doubt governments are all that concerned about people with no program or immediate desire for action. That's pretty low down the threat totem pole. I guess you can find solace that the non-government SPLC is somewhat controversially monitoring anti-government voluntarists among other factions. You're on someone's radar, at least.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is nothing to refute. You see the world through a distorted lens. You dream unreachable dreams. You will not see reason and are immune to logical persuasion. Everyone is deluded but you.

Your dream of anarchic utopia is a delusion of grandeur and you have a classic persecution complex. I will let you make the diagnosis.

That's funny. I've yet to see you make a reasoned argument in this discussion. In fact, you tried to change the subject as quickly as you could to me. Is that what you consider logical persuasion?

LOL.

[wargunfan]

That's funny. I've yet to see you make a reasoned argument in this discussion. In fact, you tried to change the subject as quickly as you could to me. Is that what you consider logical persuasion?

LOL.

It's cool brother. You win.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I am using "legitimate" to convey a popular understanding that an authority is competent to enact laws, not that that authority is necessarily just or preferable to other regimes. Basically it just means that the people find the laws credible as constructs. The regime itself might be despotic, but it enacts credible laws.

Sorry, but neither perceived competency, brute force, or despotism confers credibility or legitimacy on a government. I for one don't find the laws of such a government credible in any way. Any Mafia organization can sit down and draw up a bunch of laws that claim their extortion racket is "the law" and that their victims are really just "citizens", but that doesn't alter the reality that they are still just a Mafia committing crimes. A government is really just a Mafia writ large.

I think this thread has maybe run its course, but not before demonstrating that there really are no meaningful differences between a Mafia and a government. There are notable cosmetic differences, to be certain, but nothing in a structural or functional sense. None of the objections to this comparison are logical or consistent.

[Minister_of_Information]

Hammurabi is usually considered the first law giver, but he was a despot. How do explain the difference?

[ChartsandGrafs]

You're on someone's radar, at least.

I'm apparently on your radar as well.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Hammurabi is usually considered the first law giver, but he was a despot. How do explain the difference? And what about societies that prefer or are accustomed to despotic regimes?

Do you mean, how do I explain the difference? What difference? Just because people perceive someone as a "law giver" doesn't mean the laws are legitimate. I can give you laws to live by and hold a gun to your head while you do so, but that doesn't mean I am something other than a thug criminal.

[Minister_of_Information]

Do you mean, how do I explain the difference? What difference? Just because people perceive someone as a "law giver" doesn't mean the laws are legitimate. I can give you laws to live by and hold a gun to your head while you do so, but that doesn't mean I am something other than a thug criminal.

Law and morality are distinct from one another. A law does not need to be moral to be law. I think that is the fundamental problem with your argument.

[gatorev12]

I think this thread has maybe run its course, but not before demonstrating that there really are no meaningful differences between a Mafia and a government. There are notable cosmetic differences, to be certain, but nothing in a structural or functional sense. None of the objections to this comparison are logical or consistent.

...yes, because once someone starts asking you questions, you run away terrified that you'll actually be in a position to think for yourself for a change and have to respond substantively.

If you're truly wanting to understand the structural or functional differences between the two comparisons you're feebly trying to make here, then commit to answering questions that are asked. In case no one told you, the Socratic method has been a way to teach the uneducated/uninformed for centuries.

Now, if you're going to sit here and ignore this--like you've ignored all the other questions that have been asked of you--then the inescapable conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling since you quite clearly can't defend your position against counterpoints.

[gatorev12]

Law and morality are distinct from one another. A law does not need to be moral to be law. I think that is the fundamental problem with your argument.

...in other words, the difference between natural law and positive law.

A connection that was pointed out to Charts several pages ago--and which he's still getting completely mixed up about.

[wargunfan]

...in other words, the difference between natural law and positive law.

A connection that was pointed out to Charts several pages ago--and which he's still getting completely mixed up about.

One cannot have discourse with a mantra.

[Minister_of_Information]

...in other words, the difference between natural law and positive law.

A connection that was pointed out to Charts several pages ago--and which he's still getting completely mixed up about.

Just so you know, I'm inclined to doubt the existence of natural law. I think it is a misnomer for socio-politico-ethical instincts.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Law and morality are distinct from one another. A law does not need to be moral to be law. I think that is the fundamental problem with your argument.

Actually, the reverse is true. It's a fundamental problem with your argument, not mine.

Criminal, immoral laws ("we're allowed to rob and enslave you!) are not legitimate and no one is obligated to obey them. The only reason people do obey such laws is because they fear the consequences of not doing so. This is not real consent. Again, it's the same as a woman who allows a rapist to rape her because she fears being beat up and killed more than she does the rape itself.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that a pack of criminals can magically become a government by simply writing down on a piece of paper they are the government and passing a bunch of illegitimate laws. Even worse, you claim that this pack of criminals calling themselves "government" is the only objective measure of the laws they alone get to create. Nothing is a crime unless they say so, and they can't ever be truly guilty of committing any criminal acts since they can always just change the law to suit their criminal ambitions.

It's clear to me you've never had a discussion like this and haven't thought any of your answers through, because, frankly, they sound absurd.

[Minister_of_Information]

Actually, the reverse is true. It's a fundamental problem with your argument, not mine.

Criminal, immoral laws ("we're allowed to rob and enslave you!) are not legitimate and no one is obligated to obey them. The only reason people do obey such laws is because they fear the consequences of not doing so. This is not real consent. Again, it's the same as a woman who allows a rapist to rape her because she fears being beat up and killed more than she does the rape itself.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that a pack of criminals can magically become a government by simply writing down on a piece of paper they are the government and passing a bunch of illegitimate laws. Even worse, you claim that this pack of criminals calling themselves "government" is the only objective measure of the laws they alone get to create.

It's clear to me you've never had a discussion like this and haven't thought any of your answers through, because, frankly, they sound absurd.

Well, it wouldn't be your first error.

Again, "robbery" is a legal construct rather than a naturally occurring maxim. What you appear to be attempting to expound is the sense that such an act is wrong, but this sense is not in itself "law." The sense that certain acts are right and wrong is an ethical instinct, one that is conjoined with the cultural milieu within which it is expressed, and its primary function is to facilitate socialization among a group rather than to establish individual autonomy (which, being precedent to the collective, ought to be a given).

[gatorev12]

Just so you know, I'm inclined to doubt the existence of natural law. I think it is a misnomer for socio-politico-ethical instincts.

I don't doubt there are certain universal truths in law--but where the water gets muddied is when people start arguing man-made constructs and calling it natural law.

Natural law, in its most base form is only law stemming from nature because it applies to everyone (and everything) equally. Maxims like "survival of the fittest" and "strength in numbers" are natural laws because, all things being equal, the fittest will generally survive--and a pack is always stronger than an individual.

The old adage that people sometimes use: natural law stems from God, nature, or reason is fatally flawed with respect to two of those definitions. It assumes a God everyone can agree on, which is obviously a non-starter; and likewise, natural law stemming from reason is a non-starter because not every person is rational or reasonable 100% of the time. Even reasoned individuals can have emotion or anger block out reason from time to time.

Some might argue that "natural law" is a doomed construct though because even as we speak, there's a movement afoot by radical environmentalists to extend natural law principles to animals. In theory at least, they're right--but as you've pointed out, positive law is man-made and I doubt there's much room for non-human actors.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Well, it wouldn't be your first error.

Again, "robbery" is a legal construct rather than a naturally occurring maxim. What you appear to be attempting to expound is the sense that such an act is wrong, but this sense is not in itself "law." The sense that certain acts are right and wrong is an ethical instinct, one that is conjoined with the cultural milieu within which it is expressed, and its primary function is to facilitate socialization among a group rather than to establish individual autonomy (which, being precedent to the collective, ought to be a given).

Sorry, no, robbery is not a legal construct but a violation of natural law. Men don't need man-made laws to understand that the taking of their property through intimidation and force is unjust, which is why men in a state of nature will uphold natural law by resisting robbery. No one has to write this law down on paper, it just naturally exists between men and always has.

The only laws that are legitimate or lawful are those that are congruent with natural law.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sorry, no, robbery is not a legal construct but a violation of natural law. Men don't need man-made laws to understand that the taking of their property through intimidation and force is unjust, which is why men in a state of nature will uphold natural law by resisting robbery. No one has to write this law down on paper, it just naturally exists between men and always has.

The only laws that are legitimate or lawful are those that are congruent with natural law.

This is false. We've already established that the taking of resources from others in nature is the normal state of affairs.

[gatorev12]

Sorry, no, robbery is not a legal construct but a violation of natural law. Men don't need man-made laws to understand that the taking of their property through intimidation and force is unjust, which is why men in a state of nature will uphold natural law by resisting robbery. No one has to write this law down on paper, it just naturally exists between men and always has.

The only laws that are legitimate or lawful are those that are congruent with natural law.

Again, you're confusing natural law with positive law. Once, I can understand and excuse--but this is easily almost a dozen times you've been totally and completely wrong. Either your ignorance of the topic is truly staggering or you're doing this on purpose.

When primitive man wandered upon one another in nature, they were in a constant state of competition (ie: warfare) with one another for food and resources. One person stealing food from another's tent wouldn't have been considered "immoral" by either person--it would have been understood as a competitor/predator threatening the livelihood/existence of the other. No different from when one bear is eating a dead moose and another bear wants in on the spoils. Neither bear is behaving "immorally".

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is false. We've already established that the taking of resources from others in nature is the normal state of affairs.

We've also already established that the taking of resources from others under government is the normal state of affairs. After all, the very foundation of our government is redistribution of resources and couldn't exist without redistribution.

That's not the point. The point is, using intimidation and violence to take resources from others is unjust, whether it happens in a state of nature or under government. The reason it is unjust is because it is a violation of natural law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Again, you're confusing natural law with positive law. Once, I can understand and excuse--but this is easily almost a dozen times you've been totally and completely wrong. Either your ignorance of the topic is truly staggering or you're doing this on purpose.

When primitive man wandered upon one another in nature, they were in a constant state of competition (ie: warfare) with one another for food and resources. One person stealing food from another's tent wouldn't have been considered "immoral" by either person--it would have been understood as a competitor/predator threatening the livelihood/existence of the other. No different from when one bear is eating a dead moose and another bear wants in on the spoils. Neither bear is behaving "immorally".

False. Animals can't recognize the concept of right and wrong, man can, including primitive man.

Apples, oranges.

[Minister_of_Information]

We've also already established that the taking of resources from others under government is the normal state of affairs. After all, the very foundation of our government is redistribution of resources and couldn't exist without redistribution.

That's not the point. The point is, using intimidation and violence to take resources from others is unjust, whether it happens in a state of nature or under government. The reason it is unjust is because it is a violation of natural law.

False, and false. A thing that is routinely violated in nature can hardly be said to be natural law. Property itself is a great deal less elemental than you appear to imagine, indeed it is also a social construct. Land title is a good example. Go back far enough in every case and you stumble upon a conquest.

[gatorev12]

False. Animals can't recognize the concept of right and wrong, man can, including primitive man.

Apples, oranges.

Right and wrong are moral/ethical beliefs--which vary according to culture, society, and even on an individual level.

So the question becomes: can you prove that EVERY primitive man shared the exact same moral/ethical beliefs?

Because if you can't, then all you've been doing is making yourself look like a complete fool on this thread.

[ChartsandGrafs]

False, and false. A thing that is routinely violated in nature can hardly be said to be natural law. Property itself is a great deal less elemental than you appear to imagine, indeed it is also a social construct. Land title is a good example. Go back far enough in every case and you stumble upon a conquest.

False yourself. Just because natural law can be violated doesn't mean there's no natural law. Your individual right to your own life can also be violated, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to live.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Right and wrong are moral/ethical beliefs--which vary according to culture, society, and even on an individual level.

So the question becomes: can you prove that EVERY primitive man shared the exact same moral/ethical beliefs?

Because if you can't, then all you've been doing is making yourself look like a complete fool on this thread.

False. It doesn't matter what primitive man believed, morality is objective. Chopping off an innocent man's head or torturing another man for the hell of it is wrong. Belief is irrelevant.

Denied. Try again.

[gatorev12]

False. It doesn't matter what primitive man believed, morality is objective. Chopping off an innocent man's head or torturing another man for the hell of it is wrong. Belief is irrelevant.


Plenty of primitive cultures and societies thought it moral to do just that: chop off an innocent man's head or torture them to death as part of human sacrifice and/or cannibalistic rituals. They felt no guilt in doing so--and, indeed, according to their faith, they were probably acting morally too.

What about them? Do they not count because they completely shatter what you're falsely attempting to argue?

If this is the basis for your argument, you're once again proving your ignorance in not differentiating between morality and law...and between positive law and natural law.

Oh...and now that you're making a feeble attempt at responding to questions...perhaps revisit the earlier two yes/no questions I was asking you? Or still too scared to try that topic?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Plenty of primitive cultures and societies thought it moral to do just that: chop off an innocent man's head or torture them to death as part of human sacrifice and/or cannibalistic rituals. They felt no guilt in doing so--and, indeed, according to their faith, they were probably acting morally too.

What about them? Do they not count because they completely shatter what you're falsely attempting to argue?

If this is the basis for your argument, you're once again proving your ignorance in not differentiating between morality and law...and between positive law and natural law.

Oh...and now that you're making a feeble attempt at responding to questions...perhaps revisit the earlier two yes/no questions I was asking you? Or still too scared to try that topic?

Irrelevant. Morality is still objective and natural law is the basis for man-made law.

Try again.

[umcpgator]

False. Animals can't recognize the concept of right and wrong, man can, including primitive man.

Apples, oranges.

You might want to rethink that statement. Many studies of chimps, among other animals, refute the idea that animals don't know whats right and wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness-morality/index.html

"You might think of "morality" as special for humans, but there are elements of it that are found in the animal kingdom, says de Waal -- namely, fairness and reciprocity. His latest study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1220806110.abstract), published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that chimpanzees may show some of the same sensibility about fairness that humans do.

The popular belief that the natural world is based on competition is a simplification, de Waal says. The strength of one's immune system, and the ability to find food, are also crucial. And many animals survive by cooperating.
"The struggle for life is not necessarily literally a struggle," he said. "Humans are a highly cooperative species, and we can see in our close relatives where that comes from."


Mammals such as wolves, orcas and elephants need their groups to survive, and empathy and cooperation are survival mechanisms. De Waal discusses these mechanisms in his 2009 book "The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society."
"We think that empathy evolved to take care of others that you need to take care of, especially, of course, between mother and offspring, which is universal in all the mammals," de Waal said."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality."

[gatorev12]

Irrelevant. Morality is still objective and natural law is the basis for man-made law.

Try again.

I gave you an example of a belief system where murder and torture were an active part of morality for a culture or society. Unless you're trying to deny human sacrifice being part of the faith practices of different peoples, then your argument has absolutely no bearing.

The only reason morality is objective is because you're assuming that everyone is in 100% agreement of what's "moral" or "immoral." Which is ridiculous to the point of absurdity--but most of the things you say are.

Morality varies greatly between different peoples, cultures, and societies. The gap has lessened with religions growing more consolidated into just a few different faith patterns in modern society--but suffice it to say, the gap was far greater when there were hundreds of thousands of different religious belief systems spread out across the world.

Love the continued dodging of the other topic though. It's as if you sense the trap and are doing everything in your power to weasel away from it. Have to admit, it's hilarious. The great "anarchist" himself being shamed into silence because he sees the writing on the wall. Keep up the valiant efforts at trolling though.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You might want to rethink that statement. Many studies of chimps, among other animals, refute the idea that animals don't know whats right and wrong.



I just read through your links and found nothing to indicate that animals have any capacity to recognize the concept of individual rights as it pertains to morality, which is the kind of right and wrong we are discussing here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I gave you an example of a belief system where murder and torture were an active part of morality for a culture or society. Unless you're trying to deny human sacrifice being part of the faith practices of different peoples, then your argument has absolutely no bearing.

Of course it does. It doesn't matter if some barbaric society believed that sacrificing children would bring them salvation from their angry sky gods. You can believe murder and torture are moral all you want, but again, morality is objective. It doesn't care what you believe. Murder and torture are wrong regardless of your values.

Sorry, try again.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Anyone else interested in attempting justify government extortion rackets?

Anyone at all?

[bluelang]

I'm very interested in seeing the list of objective moral rights and wrongs. Since it's objective it's gotta be codified somewhere, right?

[bluelang]

Actually, lemme make an assertion: you won't find a single credible philosophical or logical argument anywhere for morality being objective. That you would base an entire argument on such an obviously flawed premise should just remind us that you're here for no reason other than to amuse yourself for the tololols.