Just How Stupid Are We?

[Kshartle]

You are the one claiming that this is simple logic.  Gumby and I are stating that in morality there IS no clear logic. 

No he said that the threat of violence is needed to enforce rules and unless I prove otherwise it's true.

Whether it's true or not is not the point. The point is his argument is false (something is true unless proven otherwise).

I was just asking him to admit his argument is fallacious before going on. I am sick of the low standard people have for their arguments and I'm not going to argue against false arguments. That justifies them and encourages them. It would be a disservice to Gumby to continue. It's like when you don't tell your buddy he has spinach in his teeth before he goes into the big sales pitch.

[Xan]

The questions were the exact same ones that have been answered over and over again in previous threads by the exact same people.

All those questions have been answered and some of them are so lazy it's hard to believe.

Have you tried providing a satisfactory answer?  You might get some more mileage out of that.

[Gumby]

No he said that the threat of violence is needed to enforce rules and unless I prove otherwise it's true.

No. I'm just asking you to explain how a set of rules can be enforced without the threat of violence.

Why won't you just answer the question?

[Kshartle]

Even if you convince people that market solutions are better....it's a Pyrrhic victory. They can always be convinced that a violent solution is better because they are not guided by morality or principles or an understanding of right and wrong.

So moda and Xan and Gumby and PS and I are not guided by moral principles and that we don't understand right and wrong?

Really?

I dare say that taking such a tack will not win you many converts.

Do you think the ends justify the means TennPa?

My tack is a discussion with PS about whether or not he has actually succeded in anything worthwhile by convincing a person that a biz does a better job than the gubmit of picking up the trash. Even if you convince them of that what does it matter? If they are still stuck in the "ends justify the means" mentality then they haven't really learned anything.

Do you think I am wrong?

Do you think it's ok to steal from me if you give all the money to someone who is in utter poverty? Can you please answer that question?

[moda0306]

So what did you think of it?

Obviously this is a forum where we post short messages....not tomes. No argument is complete in a post. Certainly convincing people that humans own their own lives and have a right to their lives and property and the initiation of force is immoral and results in perverse consequences....this is as argument that can't be completed in a dozen posts unless the other party has a good foundation to build on.

This was the post about raising children better, right? I thought it was pretty good, but like any argument, it can't stand alone. When people started asking you questions about it, you kind of fell apart. You had a good thing going but needed to elaborate in a way that made sense to people rather than repeating the same points over and over again.

Yeah, I was personally hoping that it might go in this direction (which is why I noted my agreement here).

So I'm curious, Kshartle...

How are you raising your children not to believe that violence solves problems?

Does this include verbal violence?

For example, what do you do if they don't understand your logical arguments?

What do you do when your kids resist your imposing your will on them?

I think an interesting question to ask around "self-ownership" is "when is it obtained, if you're so sure it exists?"

If self-ownership is the source of our moral value (why an animal doesn't have rights), then how does a baby have it?  Further, if your 12 year old daughter wanted to run away, would you stop her by force?  What if she wanted to (sorry for this) make babies with a 40 year old guy she likes?

Does she have the "right" to do these things?

If they don't have the right to choose, what gives them the right to life?  What gives someone who no longer knows who they are the right to life from my mugging them?

These are important questions, because if I'm to abandon violence, and my daughter wants to go make babies with a 40 year old, and she has self-ownership, then I can't stop her (according to the simple logic of self-ownership).  If she doesn't have self-ownership, what says she has any moral status at all?

[Kshartle]

I don't what you mean by "enforce private rules". The only rules are respect the rights of others. Respect their persons and their property. Don't hit, don't steal.

But, those 3 or 4 rules are too limited for a group of people to live by.

Why? Do you have some basis for that assertion? What calamity will befall them without more rules than those?

[Gumby]

Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or necessary.

Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

When I said this, I just meant that people like me won't be convinced unless you can explain how the neighborhood rules will be enforced without the threat of violence. I wasn't saying that you were wrong. You just haven't explained how you are right.

[Gumby]

I don't what you mean by "enforce private rules". The only rules are respect the rights of others. Respect their persons and their property. Don't hit, don't steal.

But, those 3 or 4 rules are too limited for a group of people to live by.

Why? Do you have some basis for that assertion? What calamity will befall them without more rules than those?

Yes. Look at any town's list of ordinances and codes. Most people would not vote to abandon those codes and ordinances (electrical codes, sanitation codes, wastewater, environmental, etc).

Can you just answer the question already?? I'm beginning to think you can't. You're just dodging the question. This is getting exhausting.

[Kshartle]

So what did you think of it?

Obviously this is a forum where we post short messages....not tomes. No argument is complete in a post. Certainly convincing people that humans own their own lives and have a right to their lives and property and the initiation of force is immoral and results in perverse consequences....this is as argument that can't be completed in a dozen posts unless the other party has a good foundation to build on.

This was the post about raising children better, right? I thought it was pretty good, but like any argument, it can't stand alone. When people started asking you questions about it, you kind of fell apart. You had a good thing going but needed to elaborate in a way that made sense to people rather than repeating the same points over and over again.

Yeah, I was personally hoping that it might go in this direction (which is why I noted my agreement here).

So I'm curious, Kshartle...

How are you raising your children not to believe that violence solves problems?

Does this include verbal violence?

For example, what do you do if they don't understand your logical arguments?

What do you do when your kids resist your imposing your will on them?

Yes I would say yelling and screaming and abusive language is violence and damaging.

Who said anything about imposing my will on them?

[Kshartle]

We support limited government.....ahahahah....how's that working out. That will never work. Have you seen the size and reach of the government lately?

The limited government position might as well be named limited murder or limited rape. Stick to principles. Either it's right to initiate force against a human or it's wrong. Either it's destructive or constructive. Supporting it a little is hypocritical failure.

  this doesn't strike me as being a accurate representation of the limited government position at all. government limited to using force in the defense of property and liberty (actions you agree with even if you prefer them being privatized) is one thing, what you describe is pro government as long as it is enforcing what i want..  truly limited  VS  limited to what i want, principals VS coercion and force...

How do you fund this government that respects and protects property rights?

going back to a pre 1913 type tax system is one way

Before 1913, the federal government depended only on indirect taxes, i.e., tariff duties, corporation and other excise taxes, as its chief sources of revenue. Revenues came not from labor, but from taxes on goods—tariffs on imported products and excise taxes on items like alcohol, tobacco, firearms and margarine.

Before 1913, people could chose not to pay any and all federal taxes by choosing not to buy the goods.

[Pointedstick]

Who said anything about imposing my will on them?

Maybe you don't have any children so it's still abstract for you. Let me give you a concrete example.

My 18 month old son is sick today. His poop is slimy and disgusting and acidic and gives his poor little butt a terrible rash. When I clean his rashy butt off, it hurts him and he thrashes around and screams. I have to hold his legs open so I can get the poop off and then smear healing goop on his butt, or else his rash will get even worse and bleed (it's happened before). He can't understand any of this since he's just a baby, of course. I can't convince him to cooperate, and my wife or I can only distract him with toys and games until the wipe touches his butt and it hurts again. Was my action moral? Did I aggress against him by forcing myself on his body, even though what I was doing was actually in his best interest? Did the ends justify the means there?

[moda0306]

Even if you convince people that market solutions are better....it's a Pyrrhic victory. They can always be convinced that a violent solution is better because they are not guided by morality or principles or an understanding of right and wrong.

So moda and Xan and Gumby and PS and I are not guided by moral principles and that we don't understand right and wrong?

Really?

I dare say that taking such a tack will not win you many converts.

Do you think the ends justify the means TennPa?

My tack is a discussion with PS about whether or not he has actually succeded in anything worthwhile by convincing a person that a biz does a better job than the gubmit of picking up the trash. Even if you convince them of that what does it matter? If they are still stuck in the "ends justify the means" mentality then they haven't really learned anything.

Do you think I am wrong?

Do you think it's ok to steal from me if you give all the money to someone who is in utter poverty? Can you please answer that question?

Kshartle,

Sometimes ends justify means.

You think force is wrong, but justify killing someone if they are trying to steal "your property.?

Do the ends justify the means?


Your daughter is a sovereign individal with rights, but she's 16 and misbehaving and wants to run away, and you force her to stay in the house.

Do the ends justify the means?


You consume animals that have been tortured most of their lives to save you some money.

Do the ends justify the means?


Eventally we're left with tough, imperfect decisions.  Why?  We're all imperfect beings stuck on this rock together with limited resources with which to survive and thrive.  Not nebulous, autonomous entities floating through space.

[Kshartle]

Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or necessary.

Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

When I said this, I just meant that people like me won't be convinced unless you can explain how the neighborhood rules will be enforced without the threat of violence. I wasn't saying that you were wrong. You just haven't explained how you are right.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by the neighborhood rules. The only rules that are legitimate are the respect for the rights of others and any that are voluntarily agreed to. So I guess I'm rejecting the premise as false.

But yes, the threat of violence is neccessary to enforce some of these. I don't rely on the law or police to protect my home. I lock my doors and own a firearm.

This is different from me or a group enforcing their rules with the threat of the use of force.

[Kshartle]

Who said anything about imposing my will on them?

Maybe you don't have any children so it's still abstract for you. Let me give you a concrete example.

My 18 month old son is sick today. His poop is slimy and disgusting and acidic and gives his poor little butt a terrible rash. When I clean his rashy butt off, it hurts him and he thrashes around and screams. I have to hold his legs open so I can get the poop off and then smear healing goop on his butt, or else his rash will get even worse and bleed (it's happened before). He can't understand any of this since he's just a baby, of course. I can't convince him to cooperate, and my wife or I can only distract him with toys and games until the wipe touches his butt and it hurts again. Was my action moral? Did I aggress against him by forcing myself on his body, even though what I was doing was actually in his best interest? Did the ends justify the means there?

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

I know you know this and you know why. I assure I do to.

[Libertarian666]

Who said anything about imposing my will on them?

Maybe you don't have any children so it's still abstract for you. Let me give you a concrete example.

My 18 month old son is sick today. His poop is slimy and disgusting and acidic and gives his poor little butt a terrible rash. When I clean his rashy butt off, it hurts him and he thrashes around and screams. I have to hold his legs open so I can get the poop off, or else his rash will get even worse and bleed (it's happened before). He can't understand any of this since he's just a baby, of course. I can't convince him to cooperate, and my wife or I can only distract him with toys and games until the wipe touches his butt and it hurts again. Was my action moral? Did I aggress against him by forcing myself on his body, even though what I was doing was actually in his best interest? Did the ends justify the means there?

I think if we can agree on principles applicable to those persons who have the capacity to consent to contracts, we will solve 99% of the issues involving violence and/or government.

You can always find edge cases, especially when considering children. That is why statists use children as human shields when trying to force their will on others, e.g. Bill O'Reilly's arguments against legalizing cannabis.

Note: I'm not accusing you of this, PS, just pointing out a common tactic of statists.

[Gumby]

I guess I don't understand what you mean by the neighborhood rules. The only rules that are legitimate are the respect for the rights of others and any that are voluntarily agreed to. So I guess I'm rejecting the premise as false.

Did you not see the situation I described about the person who didn't mow their lawn and it was creating a health hazard for the neighborhood (breeding ticks with Lyme disease)? The neighbors called in the town's code enforcement officer and the threat of violence for enforcing the code to keep lawns under 6 inches high "solved" the problem for the community. Everybody was happy, despite the underhanded threat of violence.

These agreed upon mundane "codes" are what I'm talking about. Codes of conduct. Codes of ordinances. How do you enforce them?

I don't bring this up to be annoying or anything. I bring it up because you have to think of these kinds of conflicts if you are going to try to convince your neighbors of a community or world without violence.

I don't see how you could enforce these sorts of rules, that people rely on to keep their neighborhoods functioning, without an underlying threat of violence.

[Pointedstick]

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

But I am imposing my will on him. I'm using physical force to make him do something he doesn't want to do. Now, he's a baby. We're all cool with it. But if this is okay, why is it not okay if I do it to a 17 year-old? What about a 9 year-old? a 5 year-old? Where's the line? Can you acknowledge that it's a tough thing to nail down a concrete answer on?

[moda0306]

We support limited government.....ahahahah....how's that working out. That will never work. Have you seen the size and reach of the government lately?

The limited government position might as well be named limited murder or limited rape. Stick to principles. Either it's right to initiate force against a human or it's wrong. Either it's destructive or constructive. Supporting it a little is hypocritical failure.

  this doesn't strike me as being a accurate representation of the limited government position at all. government limited to using force in the defense of property and liberty (actions you agree with even if you prefer them being privatized) is one thing, what you describe is pro government as long as it is enforcing what i want..  truly limited  VS  limited to what i want, principals VS coercion and force...

How do you fund this government that respects and protects property rights?

For a split second I'll agree with you.

"Limited government" is 50% worthy goal, and 50% bs term for "I want government to do things that I like, but not other things I don't like, and I want to have a term to stand on a moral pedestal next to liberals that I want to argue with."

First off, I don't know what "defending freedoms" even means.  It's always sounded like a BS term.  Enhancing freedoms?  I could agree with that.  But that's just me.  But I think universal healthcare enhances my freedom.  Freeways enhance my freedom.

Defending property is more tangible, but 1) they have to take some property to protect the rest, and 2) vast sums of property are just arbitrary (or stolen) claims on real resources.  These are just ways for men to take control of the world around them, not enjoy pure freedom.  Property DOES enhance freedom in my opinion, but has ony limited connections to it as a direct connection to our free individual selves.

to me defending freedoms means freedom of speech, of religion, the right to keep and bare arms, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to keep the product of your labor etc.. limited government protects those freedoms for individuals from individuals, and for individuals from governments domestic and foreign.

the problem universal health care is a problem of defending property, somebody property/money/labor are being taken to provide it,
the guy who studied to be a doctor is a real resource, the guy who worked his ass off for a wage earned a real resources, are those just arbitrary claims or are they legitimate to take because it meets your need? to me taking them is a aggressive use of force the same type kshartle rails against, the type government shouldn't be doing.

[Libertarian666]

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

But I am imposing my will on him. I'm using physical force to make him do something he doesn't want to do. Now, he's a baby. We're all cool with it. But if this is okay, why is it not okay if I do it to a 17 year-old? What about a 9 year-old? a 5 year-old? Where's the line? Can you acknowledge that it's a tough thing to nail down a concrete answer on?

Here are my answers:

1. As soon as they leave home, then you can't impose your will on them any more.

2. If they stay at home but could leave, then you have to make an agreement with them as to what rules you can enforce; if they don't like your position then they can leave.

3. Until then, you can use the minimum force needed to prevent serious harm to them.

[Kshartle]

it is my experience that the default position of many (if not most) parents is that they have the right to impose their will on their children at all times.

Mine too.

How does that turn out in your experience?

[Pointedstick]

Here are my answers:

1. As soon as they leave home, then you can't impose your will on them any more.

2. If they stay at home but could leave, then you have to make an agreement with them as to what rules you can enforce; if they don't like your position then they can leave.

3. Until then, you can use the minimum force needed to prevent serious harm to them.

#2 is a tough one though. A 10 year old can leave, but would he survive? My great-great-grandfather survived being thrown out at age 8, but could every kid? Would it be responsible to let a 10 year-old leave who you were sure would get himself killed?

Of course you know that I don't think any of this invalidates libertarian principles or the importance of marketplace competition. I just think that children are a tough issue. Heck, it's tough even for governments. the arbitrary line of age 18 is no less arbitrary than making the age 20 or 15.

[Kshartle]

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

But I am imposing my will on him. I'm using physical force to make him do something he doesn't want to do. Now, he's a baby. We're all cool with it. But if this is okay, why is it not okay if I do it to a 17 year-old? What about a 9 year-old? a 5 year-old? Where's the line? Can you acknowledge that it's a tough thing to nail down a concrete answer on?

Here are my answers:

1. As soon as they leave home, then you can't impose your will on them any more.

2. If they stay at home but could leave, then you have to make an agreement with them as to what rules you can enforce; if they don't like your position then they can leave.

3. Until then, you can use the minimum force needed to prevent serious harm to them.

Bam. And very astute about the statist child tactic. As I've said, the existance of grey doesn't mean there is no black and white. The grey is tiny and virtually everyone understands. Dressing a mentally retarded person for cold weather when it's snowing outside is not "imposing your will" on them.

[moda0306]

Who said anything about imposing my will on them?

Maybe you don't have any children so it's still abstract for you. Let me give you a concrete example.

My 18 month old son is sick today. His poop is slimy and disgusting and acidic and gives his poor little butt a terrible rash. When I clean his rashy butt off, it hurts him and he thrashes around and screams. I have to hold his legs open so I can get the poop off, or else his rash will get even worse and bleed (it's happened before). He can't understand any of this since he's just a baby, of course. I can't convince him to cooperate, and my wife or I can only distract him with toys and games until the wipe touches his butt and it hurts again. Was my action moral? Did I aggress against him by forcing myself on his body, even though what I was doing was actually in his best interest? Did the ends justify the means there?

I think if we can agree on principles applicable to those persons who have the capacity to consent to contracts, we will solve 99% of the issues involving violence and/or government.

You can always find edge cases, especially when considering children. That is why statists use children as human shields when trying to force their will on others, e.g. Bill O'Reilly's arguments against legalizing cannabis.

Note: I'm not accusing you of this, PS, just pointing out a common tactic of statists.

1) How do you determine if one is of the capacity to consent to contracts?

2) Who interprets this beyond the initial contracting party? The "agreed" to arbitrator?

3) If someone is determined to have diminished capacity... say that similar to a dog... and he does not possess the ability to determine right from wrong or the ability to control themselves, what is the source of their moral rights?  If those abilities are the source of our rights as certain types of humans, what about those humans without those traits? Says who?

I promise, I'm not trying to use children and the elderly as "human shields" (give me a f'kin break man) here.  I'm simply asking the questions that appear to be so simple in your mind. 

[moda0306]

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

But I am imposing my will on him. I'm using physical force to make him do something he doesn't want to do. Now, he's a baby. We're all cool with it. But if this is okay, why is it not okay if I do it to a 17 year-old? What about a 9 year-old? a 5 year-old? Where's the line? Can you acknowledge that it's a tough thing to nail down a concrete answer on?

Here are my answers:

1. As soon as they leave home, then you can't impose your will on them any more.

2. If they stay at home but could leave, then you have to make an agreement with them as to what rules you can enforce; if they don't like your position then they can leave.

3. Until then, you can use the minimum force needed to prevent serious harm to them.

So if my 9 year old kid sneaks out the front door and "leaves home," I can't impose my will on him?

[Pointedstick]

The real answer in my mind is that we all "just know" what's appropriate and what's not in these types of situations. Nobody gives me flak for wiping my screaming baby's bum even though I'm forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do. If Moda prevents his 12 year-old daughter from becoming impregnated by a 40 year-old creepster, we take him out for a beer. When Kshartle bundles up a mentally ill person and takes him for a walk, we all think he's a swell guy for being nice and not wishing the mentally ill person didn't exist, which is what most do. That's in fact why it's so hard for the government to nail these things down with laws. They're squarely in the realm of "I know it when I see it." And that's another reason why I think a non-government society would function better. If the community was fine with something, nobody would be hassled about it because the communal consensus would create a social order that reinforced the standard.

What about nasty awful brutal communities that have decided to do terrible things? Well, the victims could always shoot back. Or move away, as Moda is so fond of proposing.