Rather than making a post that nobody will read, I post this video where I happen to concord with most of the things being said, excepting his failed humoristic attempts.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Ronhrin, do you think that morality should have scientific basis?
Everything in nature has a scientific explanation, regardless of it's degree of complexity.
With this said I find that morality is subjective, in which varies from individual to individual, it's not feasible to define a universal consensus of what morality ought to be, and impose it as an absolute on society.
What I firmly state is that the foundation of legitimacy relies on individual consent, if another person or group of persons obliges you to do anything against your will, from paying taxes to being raped or murdered, then they are not legitimate and I say that society should be absolutely based on this simple ideal, whoever initiates force should be the one accused of committing a crime.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
It's an assumption that everything in nature has a scientific explanation. We can probably come up with one for most things, but to have it be an objective fact is something entirely different.
About morality in the traditional sense = outdated and ultimately of little use.
I'm pretty much a utilitarian myself, though I loathe labels. Not all that more useful, as people will have different ideas about benefit and harm.
Human nature, like always, is the core problem. I believe a system can be achieved that's much better than what we've seen so far, but it's an incredibly slow process - and it will never be perfect.
I like how he bashes everything, yet provides no alternatives. Just like you Ronhrin.
Alternatives? I have provided alternatives countless times.
But here's the point, when you or someone like you speaks of alternatives, all I think is the following example.
There's a women that you deeply desire to have sex with, she's not interested, and you ask, well, "what alternatives do I got other than rape?"
This might be a very simple example, but in it's core, that's what government, taxation and legislature is.
It's a violation of the individual consent in order to fulfill the desires and wishes of the masses.
You still havent provided an alternative and the times you have they were truly so naive and moronic that I felt sorry for you.
I state that "rape" (taxation) is not an alternative, and you say sometimes it is, the burden of proof in offering a justification lies with you.
I'm almost certain that you're opposed to theft and extortion, as the vast majority of people are, if so, you are the one ignoring your own principles when it comes to the concept of taxation, the justification for it lies with you.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Unless there is absolute morality you can't really pesent these ideas ( society should be absolutely based on individual consent) as fact because they are based on something that is - as you have described it - subjective.
Unless there is absolute morality you can't really pesent these ideas ( society should be absolutely based on individual consent) as fact because they are based on something that is - as you have described it - subjective.
No, because I'm not speaking of morality but rather of legitimacy, and it can be proven as a fact that the violation of individual consent in any circumstance is always illegitimate, regardless of your views on morality.
For example, you might think that is moral to prohibit a person from smoking, that you're protecting her from a future illness, I may have another opinion entirely, but regardless of our opinion of morality, it is always illegitimate to impose your view of morality on that person.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Unless there is absolute morality you can't really pesent these ideas ( society should be absolutely based on individual consent) as fact because they are based on something that is - as you have described it - subjective.
No, because I'm not speaking of morality but rather of legitimacy, and it can be proven as a fact that the violation of individual consent in any circumstance is always illegitimate, regardless of your views on morality.
For example, you might think that is moral to prohibit a person from smoking, that you're protecting her from a future illness, I may have another opinion entirely, but regardless of our opinion of morality, it is always illegitimate to impose your view of morality on that person.
I think i already asked this question - it probably got burried in one of the threads - what is your definition of legitimacy? Isn't legitimacy a completely social construct that is solely based on opinions? You don't sound like one of those natural rights appologists.
I certainly hope he realises that the established version of "Legitimacy" is basically what the law states, in which case his entire argument falls apart - as we constantly restrict against individual consent - according to the law.
If Legitimacy is his own subjective idea of the concept, his entire argument falls apart as a remotely provable or useful thought.
I define the legitimacy of an act as the proportional relation between individual consent and the non intrusion in others consensual will.
An imposed action is always illegitimate by this definition.
Obviously due to our unbounded nature and ability to act by choice, (rather than by absolute law like nature itself), a consensus could be made on the validity of such statement, and in truth, practically everyone will concord with it, the concessions begin to be made afterwards as a technical need rather than a deductible agreeable philosophical truth.
In other words, most people will agree and identify with such definition, but choose to ignore it in order to fulfill a desire or need, and that is when others are falsifying their own principles. Not me.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
So, you can prove something is legitimate according to your definition?
That's really impressive.
In my opinion, all people who go around naked are acting legitimately - and so I can prove whether something is legitimate or not - based on clothing or the lack of it. Cool!
You can't get anything useful out of something as vague and broad as "the proportional relation between individual consent and the non intrusion in others consensual will" - because it's not a precise definition.
Exactly HOW do you measure this relation and what factors weigh how much?
it can be proven as a fact that the violation of individual consent in any circumstance is always illegitimate
so what you are actually stating is
violation of individual consent is..... a violation of individual consent?
What is the purpose of this? How does this relate to whether such violation should or should not happen? You make it sound like it should not without providing and proof or even reasoning.
It's somewhat of a Is-Ought problem, don't you think?
So, you can prove something is legitimate according to your definition?
That's really impressive.
In my opinion, all people who go around naked are acting legitimately - and so I can prove whether something is legitimate or not - based on clothing or the lack of it. Cool!
You can't get anything useful out of something as vague and broad as "the proportional relation between individual consent and the non intrusion in others consensual will" - because it's not a precise definition.
Exactly HOW do you measure this relation and what factors weigh how much?
It's not my definition, but rather the definition that most people hold on principle.
If you're debating to a person and that person considers theft to be illegitimate, (as most will do), then that person cannot possible justify taxation as legitimate, due to the fact that she already defined theft as illegitimate.
Nothing that is ultimately defined by free will and choice cannot have a precise definition, because we can always choose to ignore it.
What we cannot do is to coherently ignore the principles that we all as a majority agree upon.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
it can be proven as a fact that the violation of individual consent in any circumstance is always illegitimate
so what you are actually stating is
violation of individual consent is..... a violation of individual consent?
What is the purpose of this? How does this relate to whether such violation should or should not happen? You make it sound like it should not without providing and proof or even reasoning.
It's somewhat of a Is-Ought problem, don't you think?
Yes it is, that's what I was stating before, we cannot define morality as an absolute because we can choose to ignore it, we are not bound to it by natural law.
The only thing we can do is to measure the principles in which we all agree.
If all of us, or most of us, agree that extortion and theft is wrong, then taxation is wrong, and we are all breaking our own principles which makes it illegitimate, not by an absolute (because it is impossible to define absolutes in human behavior) but rather by consensus of principle.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
So, you can prove something is legitimate according to your definition?
That's really impressive.
In my opinion, all people who go around naked are acting legitimately - and so I can prove whether something is legitimate or not - based on clothing or the lack of it. Cool!
You can't get anything useful out of something as vague and broad as "the proportional relation between individual consent and the non intrusion in others consensual will" - because it's not a precise definition.
Exactly HOW do you measure this relation and what factors weigh how much?
It's not my definition, but rather the definition that most people hold on principle.
If you're debating to a person and that person considers theft to be illegitimate, (as most will do), then that person cannot possible justify taxation as legitimate, due to the fact that she already defined theft as illegitimate.
Nothing that is ultimately defined by free will and choice cannot have a precise definition, because we can always choose to ignore it.
What we cannot do is to coherently ignore the principles that we all as a majority agree upon.
You lost me, I'm afraid.
Of course we can define something - even if it's going to be ignored.
Also, we can freely ignore what the majority agree upon, if we so desire.
In any case, I think your definition (that you like to call popular) is totally useless, because the involved factors are impossible to measure or weigh in any kind of objective fashion.
Alternatives? I have provided alternatives countless times.
But here's the point, when you or someone like you speaks of alternatives, all I think is the following example.
There's a women that you deeply desire to have sex with, she's not interested, and you ask, well, "what alternatives do I got other than rape?"
This might be a very simple example, but in it's core, that's what government, taxation and legislature is.
It's a violation of the individual consent in order to fulfill the desires and wishes of the masses.
You still havent provided an alternative and the times you have they were truly so naive and moronic that I felt sorry for you.
I state that "rape" (taxation) is not an alternative, and you say sometimes it is, the burden of proof in offering a justification lies with you.
I'm almost certain that you're opposed to theft and extortion, as the vast majority of people are, if so, you are the one ignoring your own principles when it comes to the concept of taxation, the justification for it lies with you.
First of all dont compare taxation with rape, tax is a increase of your workload, whilst rape is an unwanted act on your physical being, I know where you want to go with this but this is just a completely flawed comparison.
Secondly you still havent offered an alternative to taxation, you simply state that you and everybody else shouldnt and fundamentally does not like it and its therefor up to "us" to justify its presence.
Well just because I have the time here we go:
People are group animals and have a tendency to follow a certain "idea/motivation" to an extend that is not seen in any other living thing on this planet. We are also just as savage by nature as animals and if not for our proper upbringing be completely numb to justice or injustice. Why can some criminals never feel bad about the acts they commited? Because they dont see them as "wrong" or "injustified", people always try to justify their actions even though they know they arent right.
Now our group behaviour has the following concequences, people will flock to a certain idea, wether this idea is "bad" or "good" does not really matter to these people. They will make that idea their own and find ways to justify its presence. Now imagine a stateless enviroment where this process is uninhibited and your only barrier is your own common sense.
The state doesnt outlaw cults and doesnt actively hunt unwated behaviour, the state doesnt fund a platform of education nor does it unify our ideals through education, justice and security. There is no state in your ideals, which would mean that the void left by the state would be filled with other groups filling the vacume.
I really do believe you are capable of individual thought and that you are able to properly see what has to be done, however most people cant. The majority of the people are sheep, that have to flock to an authoritarian figure or idea. When the state is no longer there to perform that role we get "city states", cults and hundreds of other groups that seclude from the rest of the world or activily bring the rest of the world into their flock.
Taxation is the way we fund our state, our base idea/authoritarian figure. The state is a necessary evil, which in its current form is weak to some form of control by the general population. Without this state something else will come up to fill that authority gap and take control of peoples lives. This, in most cases, will be something that is even more harmful to the basic standards and rights we have set to human life.
Sure, the state could use change and improvement, but your naive thoughts; that without one we can function as a whole; are not realistic. You should stop projecting yourself as the centre of the world and that we all have the potential to be like you, most people will not be able to make their own educated individual decisions. They will actively look for someone to help them make those decisions, to guide them in how to act. Currently the state performs that role in most of the world.
Now you might say you want to create some sort of "free will based higher body of authority". This body would be designed by anarchists to be non-intrusive yet force people to comply to the anarchist thought process. It would have to activily hunt any organized state "idea" because that would pretty much take over as soon as it gets a foothold in an area.
There an anarchist state body has formed.
Stop being naive and goddamn realize for once that not all people are good and strong willed by nature, the fact that we dont have a perfect society is just the proof of that. You think that you can supress all unwanted things in society by "talking" about things? What would you do when a group organizes itself against your anarchist ideals, you'd have to take up arms to defend it, isnt that hypocritical? The only way to have a safe way of governing and living is by state and therefor tax.
TL:DR
To put it in your words:
Either be raped once a day by the same person on the same time of the day, or be raped and violated many times a day at random moments and in many different ways.
I'm sorry are you saying that we should base our society on consensus (subjective opinions) now? How is that inherently different from what is happening right now? It's only the opinion that is somewhat different, but the principle is the same.
What happened to finding the phillosophical truth, some kind of self-evident principle derived from freedom that could be used universally?
Ronhrin admit it you need God for your system to work
Spoiler:
God is not useless. He solves the Is-Ought dilemma. God is the measure of absolute morality that you cannot ignore lest you face perdition. In his grace God personally gives you freedom and does not limit it in any way.Through the existence of God legitimacy acquires substanitial meaning.
Your brand of anarchism would benefit greatly from the existence of God.
You still havent provided an alternative and the times you have they were truly so naive and moronic that I felt sorry for you.
I state that "rape" (taxation) is not an alternative, and you say sometimes it is, the burden of proof in offering a justification lies with you.
I'm almost certain that you're opposed to theft and extortion, as the vast majority of people are, if so, you are the one ignoring your own principles when it comes to the concept of taxation, the justification for it lies with you.
First of all dont compare taxation with rape, tax is a increase of your workload, whilst rape is an unwanted act on your physical being, I know where you want to go with this but this is just a completely flawed comparison.
In other words, taxation becomes forced labor, something that in principle is condemned by most of us.
Ragedoctor wrote:
Secondly you still havent offered an alternative to taxation, you simply state that you and everybody else shouldnt and fundamentally does not like it and its therefor up to "us" to justify its presence.
Well just because I have the time here we go:
People are group animals and have a tendency to follow a certain "idea/motivation" to an extend that is not seen in any other living thing on this planet. We are also just as savage by nature as animals and if not for our proper upbringing be completely numb to justice or injustice. Why can some criminals never feel bad about the acts they commited? Because they dont see them as "wrong" or "injustified", people always try to justify their actions even though they know they arent right.
Now our group behaviour has the following concequences, people will flock to a certain idea, wether this idea is "bad" or "good" does not really matter to these people. They will make that idea their own and find ways to justify its presence. Now imagine a stateless enviroment where this process is uninhibited and your only barrier is your own common sense.
We are animals yes, but there's no empirical fact that states that we ought to be in a group or favor it's existence, the precedent doesn't make it a rule.
Ragedoctor wrote:
The state doesnt outlaw cults and doesnt actively hunt unwated behaviour, the state doesnt fund a platform of education nor does it unify our ideals through education, justice and security. There is no state in your ideals, which would mean that the void left by the state would be filled with other groups filling the vacume.
I really do believe you are capable of individual thought and that you are able to properly see what has to be done, however most people cant. The majority of the people are sheep, that have to flock to an authoritarian figure or idea. When the state is no longer there to perform that role we get "city states", cults and hundreds of other groups that seclude from the rest of the world or activily bring the rest of the world into their flock.
The biggest problems of society today have in one form or the other to do with the State funding and supporting cults known as religions and promoting unwanted behavior as a cultural virtue. People need to be forced into this mindset to accept it!
Ragedoctor wrote:
Taxation is the way we fund our state, our base idea/authoritarian figure. The state is a necessary evil, which in its current form is weak to some form of control by the general population. Without this state something else will come up to fill that authority gap and take control of peoples lives. This, in most cases, will be something that is even more harmful to the basic standards and rights we have set to human life.
Sure, the state could use change and improvement, but your naive thoughts; that without one we can function as a whole; are not realistic. You should stop projecting yourself as the centre of the world and that we all have the potential to be like you, most people will not be able to make their own educated individual decisions. They will actively look for someone to help them make those decisions, to guide them in how to act. Currently the state performs that role in most of the world.
Now you might say you want to create some sort of "free will based higher body of authority". This body would be designed by anarchists to be non-intrusive yet force people to comply to the anarchist thought process. It would have to activily hunt any organized state "idea" because that would pretty much take over as soon as it gets a foothold in an area.
There an anarchist state body has formed.
Stop being naive and goddamn realize for once that not all people are good and strong willed by nature, the fact that we dont have a perfect society is just the proof of that. You think that you can supress all unwanted things in society by "talking" about things? What would you do when a group organizes itself against your anarchist ideals, you'd have to take up arms to defend it, isnt that hypocritical? The only way to have a safe way of governing and living is by state and therefor tax.
TL:DR
To put it in your words:
Either be raped once a day by the same person on the same time of the day, or be raped and violated many times a day at random moments and in many different ways.
Bottom line is, why do people like me have to bow down and accept the authoritarian influence of intellectually inferior and irrational societal groups, everything you fear the world would become without the State, it already is, the only difference is that the State's existent allows for unwanted behavior not to be contained into a small area, but rather to transform it into a social, almost universal absolute.
If we cannot escape our nature, which we eventually can suppress, we should at least contain it as most as possible, and no authoritarian body regulated by humans can be impervious to our own nature.
There are some things we cannot prevent, with or without the State, but in truth what the State does is to take certain problems and escalate them into their worst.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
