Stealing is not a normative term; it simply refers to the taking of property without consent from the owner. One need not justify an entire theory of morality to conclude that something is theft.
Furthermore, if a country decided that a Holocaust of atheists would be moral and then proceeded to carry this out, your position would force you to support this political action, ultimately supporting your own murder, which is a strange conclusion.
@TheEfkk It might be the logical conclusion of how you've misunderstood my beliefs. Or it just may be something irrational which you are saying for no good reason at all :-)
interesting @ the end about libertarianism and god ; I personal believe states are a good thing ,but they must be democratically accountable , ie working for the people ,anarchism is nonsense for people drunk on cool aid .
I don't think I can top MoneyIsSilver's insults, so I am going to take some home grown eggplant and some bread crumbs, and make a nice dinner. Enjoy the beautiful day, everybody!
If libertarians object to the theft of the product of one's own labors, why are they so in love with the free market capitalistic system, set up just to do that very thing, for the benefit of the capitalists?
I suppose you are not being coerced into finding a job, after walking around hungry for a few days. I suppose taht we could all set up little vegetable gardens everywhere and be the masters of our own domains. But perhaps this is a topic for another thread.
Libertarians are not against collective action so long as it has a voluntary basis. A good example would be a militia. It provides for the common defense and is collective and non profit. Co-ops, charities. Actually even a for profit company is a volntary cooperative organization and as such could very easily be considered "collective".
So, if somebody points a gun at their kidnappers & tells them to kindly fuck off, it's OK for the kidnappers to shoot that person rather than run away?
Gotta say, I hope a hell of a debate arises out of this subject between you two. All too often this issue seems to be represented by one pious jerk shouting another pious jerk. You dudes are exactly the calm-minded intellectuals needed for an intelligent discussion on the matter.
The state says "your on my "property", I can do whatever I want and anything I do is moral because your very presence is tacit consent" I'm saying "I have exlusive right to my property, and if I deside your presense is not acceptable you do not have the right to insist to stay" If I labored to create the property, your unconditional right to it amounts to my enslavement (the state doesnt create property in this way so cant make the same argument).
There still is an analogy, the labor issue aside, which is that you're still claiming tacit consent yourself within that qualification. Your unconditional "right" to decision-making power derived from land is itself not meaningfully different than a state's unqualified authority claim - the only difference being a question of how it was aquired, and perhaps that you establish a proportionality principle relative to violence. But the issue extends beyond one of violence.
Nobody has identical values. Even if you and I both value education, it is doubtful that we do so to identical degrees. I may feel 10% off my iccome be devoted to education, where you may feel 12%. Its bogus to claim that "the common good" mandates this or that amount of any good or service. If I'm very poor it may not be reasonable for me to expend what I make on formal education, who are you (randy) to force me to do so?
It might be you could do it. I'd like to see a libertarian solution to the prisoner's dilemma. For example: Suppose there was a disease which was very contagious and 100% fatal. We have a vaccine, but it has a 0.001% chance of killing you if you take it. If everybody in the world takes the vaccine, 8,000 people will die, but the diesase will be eradicated. If even one person doesn't take it, the disease will mutate uncontrollably, and everybody on the planet dies!! (cont)
(cont, to BlueMountains28) Now suppose there is one person who absolutely refuses to take the vaccine, because they don't want to die when everybody else lives. They claim they have ownership of their body, and the right to make medical decisions for themself, and we have no right to tell them what to put into their body. They are unpersuadable. What's the solution? Yeah, its an extreme case, but a less extreme case is say universal health care. The U.S. pays 3x more per cap (cont)
(cont to Bluemountains28) than europe does, and has a lower life expectancy. If everybody were forced to buy health insurance, we would pay 3x less per capita and live longer. But a vocal minority doesn't want to be forced to do that. I actually would dearly love to see a libertarian solution to the prisoner's dilemma. To date, the human race has not found any solution to it other than tony soprano's solution: force the prisoner's not to rat each other out on pain of death.
You can't apply the morality of lifeboat scenarios to everyday life. Survival comes first, but only in situations where survival comes into conflict with, say, property rights, can the latter be compromised.
As for healthcare; our lower life expectancies can easily be attributed to our unhealthy lifestyles, cancer & heart disease patients have a higher life expectancy here, European HC systems have a lot of hidden costs, & the HMO system is a product of gov intervention (see HMO Act of 1973).
Hi DixyHair, if you don't think that lack of healthcare is pertinent to the survival of people, may I humbly suggest that you get a healthy does of contact with reality.
@randyhelzerman -- I think that personal threats of violence are way out of line. I hope you take any action you can to ban such individuals from your channel.
@BlueMountains28 Thank-you Blue Mountains, I also think the arguments made by libertarians and anarchists are important as well, which is why I think they deserve my best efforts to answer them.
@BlueMountains28 (cont to bluemountains28) This is a very sucessful, time-tested, and pragmatically valid model for building peaceful, progressive, moral, and harmonious societies. It works, and it has been shown to work in many regions of the globe and at many points in history.
@BlueMountains28 (cont, question #3) Dissent in belief should be allowed and encouraged. Also, I think everybody should be accorded the right of nonviolent civil disobedience. This goes back to Socretes (in the apology) and through gandi and martin luther king. If you disagree with a law in society, you have the right to peacefully not obey that law. You must, however, accept the punishment which society meets out for that law. In turn, society cannot kill you. no death penalties. (cont)
@BlueMountains28 Good questions, lets see if I can give satisfactory answers. (1) Yes, substantial voluntary agreement must be present, otherwise intersubjectivity does not obtain. The authority is based on the voluntary agreement. (2) The limits are anything which interferes with the process of reaching voluntary agreement. For example, laws against free speech would be out, because they limit the ability of people to voluntarily agree. slavery, etc, also, or religious tests, etc. (cont)
If some guy just came into your home and sat down on your couch, would you be intiating force to make him leave? Not really, its your property, and he is trespassing, He does not have the right to the use of your house (else you would be his slave). Although I think proportinality applies, removal from private property is a basic property right. The squater initiated by enterhing your property. But what do you care, rape is fine by you.
Hi lengthyounarther, I'm terminating our conversation, because by saing things like "rape is fine by you" you indicate that you are not conversing in good faith. I do not condone rape or any other violation of human rights and I won't be demonized. Good day.
Length, your same line of argument can be turned around and used to defend currently existing states as defacto land property owners. This is part of why I abandoned the standard absolutist propertarian arguments.
I've used the term private property, but have not defined it. Depending how I do, it may or may not be possible to defend a state. How you could conclude that I espouse "absolutist propertarian arguments" based on what I've said eludes me. Arguing that the state is a private property owner would extend the consept far beyond reason since the states idea is that it owns however much it wants by decree, a rather different basis than someone building a bar or other business.
The functionality of a state, whether we want to say that its aquisition of that property is just or not, is as a land property owner. When I speak of propertarianism, I don't refer simply to a question of aquisition, but the notion that ownership justifies an unqualified power over anyone that happens to reside within a claimed geographical area. When you invoke the notion of "if you're on my land, you must abide by whatever rules I establish or I can use force on you", this mirrors the state.
I said you can use force squaters to leave (and I said with proportianate force) ie, you cant just kill people because they accidentally step on you lawn (I know there are people who advocate this). If I have property I can exlude others from it, that doesnt mean I can do whatever I want should they be on my property (which appears to be the posistion you've assigned to me). Pushing an intruder is justifed, blowing his brains out is an offense in itself.
Sure, the proportionality argument against simple shooting is a step in the right direction. But I want to push the question further to questioning the idea that you can literally set up whatever "rules" you want, and whoever is on your land somehow implicitly consents to them or must be subject to being treated as a squatter if they don't. It's that unqualified kind of "rule-making" power I want to doubt.
A property owner does not have an "unqaulified" right to do whatever it wants to a person on his property. The squater has rights to his body regardless of his posistion, but the property owner has a right to exlusivity, which means he can remove the squater (not that he can do whatever he wants without qualification). How much force is justified to accomidate both parties should be determined by a body of law developed by competitive arbitures over time.
I'm not talking about an issue of force, but an issue of decision-making power or rule-making. You are asserting that a land owner has an unqualified right of decision-making power or rule-making, with the sole qualification of proportionality in violence. But it does return to an issue of force as soon as someone doesn't want to abide by your rules and civilly disobeys your request for them to leave. Force will have to enter the picture at that point.
Well originally you said my arguments could justify a state. However since I dont view property rights as granting "unqualifed" power, I dont see how it does. If a squater refuses to leave, you can propotinatly increase force (overaction would be a crime iteself)to get him off your property. If your argument is that a squater can only be asked, but never forced, than the person who's labor provides the property has been either robbed or enslaved.
I'm comparing it to a state insofar as there is the idea that, as a land owner, you can make whatever rules you want within the bounds of non-aggression and anyone that doesn't abide by those rules must be treated as a squatter to be excluded. I'm focusing on the issue of rule-making. So, I could establish a rule, "if you come on my land, you must take your clothes off and let me have sex with you". This doesn't violate the NAP, but it's a ridiculous authority claim.
Property owners are not under any obligation to treat squaters in any paticular way. Should they choose to ignore, remove, reward, or otherwise censure them is up to them.If somebody comes onto your land and you have such a sex rule, it doesnt mean they must have sex with you, only that if they dont have sex with you, you as the property owner have the right to get them off your property.This right is not unqualifed. I have the authroity to remove you, not do whatever I want (unlike states)
I'm saying that the idea that you can demand whatever you want from people because they are on your land is ridiculous. The "abide by my rule of be forcibly excluded" *is* them having to follow your rule. There ultimately is an implied threat of force down the line. The "authority to remove you if you don't do what I want" is practically the same thing as the authority to do what you want to others on your land. That's where propertarianism gets silly.
I'm not saying you can "demand whatever you want". The only thing you can "demand" is that they leave. If they dont leave, that doesnt mean you can do "whatever you want" only that you can use force to the point of getting them off your property. If the property is legitmate (based on labor and to a lesser degree use) I dont see this as problematic. The state on the other hand does demand whatever it wants and reserves the right to limitless property via decree (not based on labor or use)
That's missing the point - the issue isn't one of asquisition but an issue of the type or scope of authority that can reasonably be said to be justified by ownership. This is the true problem behind the love it or leave it argument, and libertarians deconstruct themselves the moment that they themselves make a love it or leave it argument based on the sanctity of land property. So, from my perspective, even if the land *was* a product of the state's labor, its authority still wouldn't be just.
(cont, to blueMountain) so yeah sure, a healthy degree of libertarianism is baked into intersubjective agreement. But when there is a broad consensus about something (e.g. its wrong to kill other people) exists, society has the right to compell agreement in action. Society can compell you not to kill, but it can't compell you to BELEIVE you can't kill.
*chuckle* well said BlueMountain28, I do think that a healthy dose of libertarianism is a precondition for intersubjective agreement. You can't agree to something if you are not free to disagree about it. Freedom of conscience and belief must be guaranteed for all. I think its ok to force somebody to pay their taxes, but to force somebody to sign an afidavit saying they believe its right to pay taxes is not ok. People need room to disagree. (cont)
Hi blueMountains28, I don't see how it justifies any of that. If you are committing genocide, you are not trying to engage in intersubjective agreement. Same goes with slavery and segretation. These are deviations from intersubjecive morality, not examples thereof.
Bar owners often employ bouncers (or tony sopranoes if you like). They own the bar, if they dont like your behaviour they can tell you to leave. You dont have a right to the use of their bar so if you refuse to leave, its not wrong for them to have their bouncers escort you out any more than its wrong for you to make an unwanted guest enter your home.
Interesting....bar bouncers are very much an example of the initiation of force. I can very well imagine some drunk, while being tossed out of a bar, yelling "...but I didn't sign any contract which said you could toss me out if I got too loud!!!!!!!!" So you do think that the initiation of force is ok under some circumstances.
Sorry the drunk (or other patron) had a choice to go to that bar, or even not to go to the bar at all. To say that he has a right to be there no matter what, would make the people who build and operate the bar slaves. If you have property and allow others to use said property (to drink for instance), you can make said use of property conditinal. You can demand an entrance fee and certain eddicit for instance. People entering your bar consent to this.
Don't you see the deconstruction that takes place with this line of argument? You're using the same line of reasoning that others would use to defend the state.
Monopolies are bad at providing goods and servies. If we had a single institution controling shoe production, the quality and quantity of our shoe supply would be inferior. To say one is opposed to a monopoly on shoe production is not to say one is opposed shoe production. Law is far more important than shoes' but this only makes the potential abuses of a law monopoly even worse.Not only is there such a thing as a private arbitration, but our current law code developed in a statelss society.
You cant say that governments are justified inplicitly by intersubjective consesns and then condemn this or that government action. Jews could have fled germany (many did) and had they resisted (a tiny number did) this would only mean the government was justified in using "proportional force" against them. Nor are historic examples of this limited to germany. The american south rebelled violently for 4 years, does the fact that they were crushed equate to their concent to be ruled?
ha, not often do we get the north's victory in the civil war compared to the holocaust, but no, the norths victory didn't cause the south to consent to be ruled at all. Rather it was the reverse: the south could have staged a very effective gurilla war, concievably lasting until today. But they didn't; they stopped fighting and decided to rejoin the union.
Here again your justifing any and all conquests. This does justify rape, because as long as the woman fails to stop the rapists it means she consents. She could kick and sceame for an hour, but if evently he beats the shit out of her enough that she does not resiste his final thrust, she's consented and its not rape. Likewise failing to stop and invader means the invader has your consent and hence is justified in any act.
Your the one who said that by not continuing the civil war via gurilla war southerners are concenting to the federal government and hence whatever it does to them. By this reasoning rape is perfectly ethical, unless the woman succeddes in escaping in which case actual rape doesnt even occure. If however the rapists succeddes this is consent. What do you not understand about this reasoning?
Hi lengthyounarther, look man, in this world if you want something you've got to fight for it. Your guardian angel isn't going to protect you with God's grace. "Give me liberty or give me death!" are not just some idle words dude. If you stop fighting for it, its gone.
Where did I say you should just be given things, or expect to just be given things? What statements of mine led you to this outburst? Saying goods and serviese should be exchanged on a voluntary basis, does not mean that they will just be given freely. In practice it means that they will be sold and the only way to recieve them is if you work and are willing to pay for them. If your unwilling to do so, you wont have anything at all.
Just wait a minute. You said that morals come from society; but, the Confederacy, which effectively was their own society, believed it wrong for the Union to invade. Now, is it OK for one society to invade another? How do you determine that in the absence of a larger mega-society of which those two societies are a part? And what if there's no consensus?
Yes, he has already said that since the southerns eventually stopped fighting they were consenting to the federal government. When I said this could be used to justfiy rape, he got mad and said he wont talk to me.
Hi DixyHair, lol, your name indicates I probably have a pretty small chance of persuading you :-) but here's how I see it. The confederacy isn't an example of the absence of a larger mega-society. The mega-society existed (the united states) and the south stopped trying to reach intersubjective agreement with the north when it rebelled. The civil war illustrates the horrors which happen when people stop trying to reach intersubjective agreement. YMMV, I understand your view might differ:-)
but regardless of whether the confederacy is an example of this or not, your question of what to do when no consensus obtains is a valid and urgent question. I think if no consensus obtains, then nobody can be very sure whether they are right or wrong. And in absence of such consensus, it is not moral to use force.
So since the war and bailouts and marijiana laws are opposed by a majority, ( to name only a few) at the very least there is not a consensus and as such taxation for these activities are not moral? But if I tell the IRS I'm only paying for the "servies' that have consensus I'll go to jail, and you'll support my imprisonment as justified.
"I think if no consensus obtains, then nobody can be very sure whether they are right or wrong. And in absence of such consensus, it is not moral to use force."
On this view, in the case of those who do not recognise the legitimacy of the state, and tax, no consensus obtains; thus it is immoral for the state to use violence to extract taxes.
Noen even within the governments own framework of claimed legitimacy, the constitution, they have broken the contract by violating the 10th amendment by ignoring it rather then amending it
The 10th amendment says any powers not explicitly stated in the constitution are up to the states or the people, they then proceed to list these powers.
Following the constitution on an ad hoc basis is dangerous if they disregard the 10th amendment what will stop them from disregarding the 1st
Dont your arguments morally justfiy any and every act by every government in history. Was the Holocaust OK because the jews that died had consented by not having left? What about the million murdered by the Soviet or Chinese governments, or would you also consider their deaths as "for their own good" because the government is a "meter stick" to society and as such has unlimited moral authority to determine whats our best interests?How does your idea not justfify any and all types of conquest?
Hi lengthyounarther, in the unfortunate cases you mentioned, I would say that the governments were not good meter sticks. Its possible for a meter stick to shrink or break, and its possible for governments to malfunction as well. I would count them therefore as deviations from Intersubjective morality rather than examples of it. BTW, I'm open to suggestions as to alternatives: what do you think makes murder and conquest wrong, if its not that it tramples upon intersubjective agreement?
Well one thing I woudl suggest is that whenever two parties agree without any threat of coersian, its safe to say that both benifit. Most of the goods and services we all use are provided in this way. If one party is not willing to make an exchange its very dubious to claim the exchange is in their best interests (if it were forcing them to pay would not be nessisary).
I agree that utmost respect should be payed to voluntary agreement, and it is one of the most reliable indicators of goodness we have. But its not infalable: for example, a teacher and a student might disagree that the student should learn to read. This would be, IMHO, to the detriment of the student.
Its not that simple. Firstly this is a bad example because the student is probably not the one paying the teacher. I value ecuation a great deal and have spent lots of my time and money to educate myself. If however somebody else values other things more to the effect that they only want to pay for half as much education as I have, I dont see how it can be claimed that my favored level of education is in their best interests.
Well, I think its prettty obvious that being surrounded by highly educated, well informed, cultuered and literate people has its advantages, so it might be in the public interest to encourage such a society.
Encouragment is fine, but advocating state mandates goes a bit further than "encouragment". Its a fallacy to say that being against the state provision of a good or service (like education for instance) means you are agains said good or service. Do you think the government should control shoe production? If not, does that mean you want everyone to go barefoot? If people have to be forced to subsidize your ideals saying their in their best interest is dubious at best.
Actually if two parties agree voluntarily its as close to the best interests of each party as can be determined (far closer than when one party is forced to pay on threat of incarceration). Since the child is rarely the one paying its not even a valid example. They child isnt the one paying the teacher, the parents are (probably). The exchange is between the parent and the teacher not the teacher and student so calling the student teacher arrangment voluntary is false.
Is it objectively wrong to disobey societal norms? If so, moral relativism completely self-implodes, & if not...it just implodes.
I'd say that morality is just a product of our emotions, that it's completely subjective. That being said, the belief that shit smells bad is also subjective. People already believe that what the state does is immoral, they just don't realize it; you need only be CONSISTENT in the common stance that extortion, murder, etc is wrong, & the state is wrong by corollary.
In other words, the state ALREADY violates societal norms, it already does things that if done by anybody else would be considered immoral, people just hold an illogical double-standard & give the state a free pass.
Hi DixyHair, I like to compare morals with paper money. Objectively, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper with no value. But since everybody treats it as money, it has value. Not objective value but intersubjective value. Same for morality; marriage e.g. is constructed by society but its still wrong to cheat on your wife. And sure, the state can and does diverge from intersubjectively accepted moral practice. But taxation isn't an example; there is broad consensus that taxation is legit.
"Hi lengthyounarther, in the unfortunate cases you mentioned, I would say that the governments were not good meter sticks. Its possible for a meter stick to shrink or break, and its possible for governments to malfunction as well."
And according to what standard did they malfunction, if they are the ultimate arbiter of what is right & wrong?
"I would count them therefore as deviations from Intersubjective morality rather than examples of it."
Hi DixyHair, I would say that where nazi germany went wrong was that it refused to try to reach intersubjective agreement with its Jewish minority. It would therefore be an example of what can go wrong if you don't try to reach intersubjective agreement. I think the laws of a society are only moraly justifyable if they are the result of an intersubjective consenses of as many people as you can bring into the process of as possible.
So a government that doesnt reach consensus with its anti tax libertarians is in the "wrong". Who's to say what is, and is not an "intersubjective consensus"? How can it even be actualtly known? YOu might as well say that the "will of god" rule. You keep saying the government is justified because of ISC, if so whats the basis for saying it lacks ISC? If Germany had an ISC, would you conclude that the holocoust was ok? A majority once thought slavery ok, so according to you, it was.
I have to disagree, the religious right isn't Libertarians, they have some ideas in common, but so does progressive liberals. The drug war for instance...
hi Platypus2048, perhaps I should have said "the degree to which the religious right is internally consistent is the degree to which they are libertarian" or some such :-)
Sure, we would ALL like to have secret police monitoring our every move and legions of stormstroopers to remove undesirables, but WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT ALL???
@urbanelf, I know you were being sarcastic but that is exactly why I don't think anarchism has a future.
Weaponry will inevitably increase in power, ease of construction and portability. There will come a time when I can go into my backyard shed and make a device that will kill millions.
The often irrational human, and perhaps the earth, can only survive under a global, intrusive police state.
Intersubjective consensus =/= the State determining what is moral!
Also, if it be the case that the anti-statist face the is-ought dichotomy then that is also true for the Statist, AND the fact that taxation is the current way of the world makes taxation no more a default human position and above the burden of proof. I think that in this video you allude to anti-statism only hinging on a particular view of morality and don't take into consideration the economic/pragmatic args.
Hi Chrisnoscrubb047, well this video didn't have the general goal of refuting libertarianism, it just was to answer bitbutter's question. Sure, the state can be out of sync with the intersubjective consensus--but it also could be in sync with the intersubjective consensus, and in those cases the answer to bitbutter's quesitons are clearly "no".
If "society" (or in this case, the State, since in the video he says it is the STATE that decides what is moral) decides that it is moral to torture men with the youtube username: randyhelzerman every saturday for the rest of his life, because he had the youtube username at one point in time, then that means it is currently moral to torture men with youtube username: randyhelzerman every saturday for the rest of his life, b/c he had the youtube user name at one point in time.
Hi bitbutter, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Society cannot be wrong when it comes to morality. If you don't think that is correct, then pray tell, what makes it wrong to burn witches? Or collect taxes? Or steal? Is it God? Is it some platonic ideal of morality? What makes me wrong and you right about this? There is a glaring lack of answer to this question.
It sounds to me like you lack a moral compass of your own and need a paternal state figure to tell you what's right and wrong. Not everyone is like that. Some people understand that morality is leaving other people alone unless they infringe on your rights, then there is a dispute. Also, society =/= government. Society can be a group of individuals who work in the private sector, earning their money through voluntary trade. Government is entirely composed of people living off extortion.
Hi MoneyIsSilver, if you don't like my answer about where morals come from, tell me where they do. Saying they come from a "moral compass" is pretty vague. What does that mean? You may not like my answer, but at least I have an answer--a specific, concrete answer which we can use to determine what to do.
I don't like saying "they come from" anywhere. That's like asking, "where does nature come from?" Do morals have a place they're going if they came FROM somewhere. That doesn't make sense. Morality is right and wrong. Where does right or wrong come from? These aren't logical questions. You have agreed that stealing another's property is immoral - what made you say that? do you need the state to tell you that stealing is immoral, or do you just know that?
Hi MoneyIsSilver, I have a straigtforward, unambigouous answer to give you as to why stealing is wrong: there is intersubjective agreement that it is wrong. So its not impossible to give an answer to these questions. You might not like my answer, but do you have a better one? If you don't have an answer to that question, how can you say I'm wrong and you are right?
Now you're saying that I can't answer your question from lack ofr an answer when I just explained your question of "where do morals come from" is not a valid question to begin with. Morals do not travel from one source to another, they just are. I won't get into the difference between intersubjective agreements and government cause I see others on here have argued that difference more than adequately for you. Furthermore, morality doesn't "come from" ISA, ISAs recognize morality.
Hi MoneyIsSilver, the reason I don't think "morals just are" is a very useful explanation of why I'm wrong is this: any gasbagger could say that. For example, I could say that too: "Its just true that taxation is good. no reason, its just good for no reason at all". Are you convinced? do you feel like you've gotten a real answer? No? Well, neither do I. I don't really think you can justifiably claim that you are right and I am wrong on that basis.
My video assumes a moral common ground with those i'm trying to persuade. If you believe that the behaviour of the witch hunters, the nazis and the spanish inquisition were moral because they were widely approved of by the societies they took place in, then I don't share that necessary moral common ground with you.
For the record, I don't believe that any of those were moral, because there is an intersubjective agreement that they were not moral. But you still have not given me any reason to believe that I should answer your 2 questions with "yes" rather than "no". If you are right and I am wrong about this, you should be able to articulate why. I might not agree with your answer, but you should at least be able to state one. I find it interesting that you don't.
No bitbutter, I don't. There has been intersubjective agreement that murder is wrong long before the nazi's came along, and long after. The nazi's were devients from intersubjective morality, not examples of it.
Randy, the real question then is what how big is the domain of subjects for which moral intersbujectivity matters? If the domain is all people who have ever and who will ever live (or all sapient creatures or something else) then it seems like one society (as we use the term)'s laws say almost nothing about morality.
Well that's an interesting point shuyande24. I think we should include in the domain as many people as are willing to in good faith try to reach intersubjective agreement with us. We don't have to include nazi's, becuse they have no interest in reaching intersubjective agreement with Jews, for example. And sure, our current laws certainly contain countless points which we will later consider to be wrong. But as long as they reflect the current consensus what else could we do?
Annnnnd once again we are in bed with Nietzsche, the hairy old dude. solving the question of how we ground or sense of moral right and wrong is a tough nut. Far tougher than dealing with Glibertarain idiots. THEY certainly lack the tools to deal with it.
"It seems like what you're asking is: is it moral for the state to tax you"
No, i'm not asking that. The fact that something is an example of stealing does not mean that we morally condemn it (i'm sure that you can think of instances of stealing that seem justified).
I'm only asking if you can acknowledge that the state does in fact steal from people. (Bear in mind the person snatching the fish out of your hand on desert island).
hi bitbutter, this may be just a verbal thing, but no, I can't imagine a case in which stealing is morally justified---because "steal" is a moral term. Its like asking is there a case in which an immoral act is morally justified. In the case of taxation, I don't believe the money you pay in taxes is your property to begin with, so no, I don't believe stealing happens, nor do I see any analogy with the fish case.
@randyhelzerman you said *I can't imagine a case in which stealing is morally justified---because "steal" is a moral term.*
I've created a document that describes the location of a nuclear device. You live next door and have overheard me discussing a plan to detonate the device, which would kill millions. When i'm not around you break in, and take the document, so that the device can be found and disarmed.
I'm only stealing if I'm taking your property. If society says that you may not own anything which you will use to kill millions of people, then its not your property, and taking it won't be stealing. You keep proposing these point scenarios, bitbutter, but what I'd like to know is some general principle I can use to determine when something is stealing and when something isn't. You may not like my answer, but at least I have an answer: its stealing if there is a consensus that its stealing.
I'm walking down the street and see someone on fire. I notive you have a well on your property so I climb your fence grab a bucket of water, and put the fire out. Did I steal your water?
Now in order to remain consistent (stealing is stealing is stealing) I assume you would say yes.
I say GOOD LUCK having me arrested, you'd be laughed at if you tried.
Likewise the state has the right to tax you to pay to put out metaphorical people on fire.
Not just other people who are on fire, but you as well if you were to spontaneously combust. Whether you explicitly agree to it or not, no one is going to let you burn.
In fact the only way you can avoid people climbing your fence and "stealing" your water to put people on fire out, or avoid having someone put you out if you're on fire, is to move where there are no people. Or to a place where people are perfectly happy to let people burn because they believe their property rights take precedence over the greater good.
According to your logic, if the societal consensus was that it was ok to hang black people (as it has been in various places through the ages), the state would have the right to do that too.
"if the societal consensus was that it was ok to hang black people (as it has been in various places through the ages), the state would have the right to do that too."
Obviously the state had the "right" to do so, since it was legally acceptable. If you're asking whether it was "morally right" that's a different issue.
I think since we almost universally agree NOW that black people are "human beings" (which wasn't always the case), they have the same rights as everyone else.
If at some point in the future society decides that all cows, and pigs have the right to life. Would that mean that retroactively it was NEVER your right to eat a steak?
@TheNakedAtheist You said: "Likewise the state has the right to tax you"
It's trivially true that the sate's own rules (law) say that the state can tax me. So the state has a _legal right_ to tax me, sure. That's not being contested and hardly needs mentioning.
I took you to mean that the state has a _moral_ right to tax me because societal consensus. Is this correct? and if so, how do you resist the conclusion that the state also has a moral right to hang racial minorities?
So if you eat meat, and see nothing wrong with it is it morally right?
What about 100 years from now when most people have been convinced it's morally wrong, and have outlawed it. Is it then morally wrong. What has changed other than subjective consensus?
"If you asking if it's right (morally from my perspective in this time, and place). No."
I'm glad to hear it. So from your perspective, the principle of societal consensus as a basis for the justification for the actions of a state, has a serious problem: namely that it can lead to actions that run in opposition to what is morally acceptable. Thus, from your perspective, it cannot be the case that the state derives any kind of moral right from societal consensus.
-it can lead to actions that run in opposition to what is morally acceptable
If you're say the states actions can act in way that go against consensus I disagree, accept in the most extreme, and short term ways.
Example Iraq war. Even at it's worst 35-40% still supported it. A certain percentage thought we should withdraw immediately, and a certain percentage thought we should withdraw over time. The consensus was long term withdrawal. It was a compromise between immediate, and never.
-No, i'm saying that actions that are in accord with consensus run in opposition to what is morally acceptable to both of us. Do you agree?
Obviously the state does things that I consider immoral, but overall I think it is more moral (by my standard of morality) than the average person. In other words the consensus favors my position.
I use the example of the Iraq war because on the face of it it seems to be a clear cut case of the state being involved in an "immoral" war. However it was, and continues to be a war that is supported by societal consensus.
"Once again I'll ask you to tell me who determines what is, or isn't moral, you? God?, a coin toss?"
I hope you'll excuse me; I don't want to get into that. What matters most for me is that our moral judgments are largely aligned. (eg. we both think that hanging people because they are of the wrong skin colour is morally unacceptable). From this shared ground we can agree, i hope, that societal consensus doesn't provide anything that we could call a 'moral right'.
I can work with that. I think that forcing you to pay your taxes is not an injury to you; on the contrary, it is beneficial to you in countless ways, from paying for national defense, to education, advancing the sciences and arts, etc....
So is what is personally benifical to somebody is also subject to "intersubjective concensus? Defense, education, advancing the sciences have in the past (and to some extent still are) provided by mutal and explicit agreement between both the provider and consumer, without the threat of imprisonment for the consumers own good. If a majority is Christian, can forced conversian simply be justified as "in the best interests" of anybody who would rather not be converted?
The problems I see with his core reasoning here were addressed very well in the video response by Stargazer. If a child who's old enough to grasp what rape is is given an explanation of it, they wouldn't find whether or not is right to be a moral quandary -- but based of Randy's explanation they would, since the morality of a thing is determined by consensus (agreement by the majority in a given society).
I cant see how giving people syphilis is in their best interests, but out government did it to black people. Since the military did this should we not conclude that it was in their best interests and benifited them greatly because they need "defense"? Did they not "consent" to this treatment? Based on your reasoning I dont see how we can find fault in things like this since according to you, by its very existance the state and whatever actions it takes is consented to by a populace.
Where in that comment did I state that your views could be used to justify rape?
Again: If a child who's old enough to grasp what rape is was given an explanation of it, they probably wouldn't find, at that moment, whether or not rape is good to be a moral quandary -- but based on your explanation they very well may, since according to your reasoning the morality of a thing is determined by consensus (agreement by the majority in a given society, or what have you).
hi lengthyounarther, sure, what is personally benificial to you is also subject to intersubjective agreement. For example, we might deny young children or old people a driver's licence, even though they might not personally agree with it. I totallly admit that these cases are on the same scale as forced conversions, and I see the drawbacks of my answer. But I see real dangers with everybody being able to make up their own laws too. If you have a better answer, lets hear it.
Its a false dichcotomy to say that the government is not legitimate, hence "everybody gets to make up their own law". Private property solves the dilema your talking about. For instance roads can be funed by voluntary market transactions (roads were not invented by the state, and today there are many non tax based toll roads. Its very easy to negotiate conditions in a private contract (you cant drive one this road unless you pay and meet certain safty requirments.)
but even with private roads, you are still subjecting people to intersubjective agreement. Suppose you had a private road, and prohibited me from driving on it. I could just say "sorry, its not in my own best interest not to drive on your road". who is going to tell me I'm wrong? Sure, you could hire tony soprano to kick me of your road, but that doesn't make you right, it just makes you stronger.
If I tell you that you may not drive on my road, thats not based on intersubjetive consensus. If I build a road, I have the right to put conditions on its use. Normially this would probably mean charging a fee for use. To say otherwise is to say others have a right to the products of my labor (slavery). As long as I'm not the only person allowed to provide roads or other forms of transit, competition will drive down the price and drive up the quality of my road service.
"What the state will do, is that in proportion to what you are doing to resist it, the state will meet that measure back out to you"
That's not quite true. Since if you do _nothing_ (and you haven't paid your taxes), the state will kidnap you by dragging you away. Because they're in the role of predatory aggressor, there's an asymmetry in force used right at the start.
hi bitbutter, "proportional" doesnt' mean the ratio of response is 1 to 1. It means that the state will ratchet up its response as you ratchet up yours. it will always make the first move, but doesn't directly go to killing you, or even kidnapping you. First move is just sending you a polite letter asking you write them a check or work out a payment plan.
This was a good response, but I still think the essential point remains - states undoubtedly engage in unjust actions at times. Of course all anarchists and many libertarians overstate their case whilst playing down the clear and distinct problems of individualism.
I think what gets people down is the feeling that the state has all-consuming authority. It's natural to chafe against this; to desire power and to resent those who hold it.
Isn't the idea of an "ideal" observer determining what is moral circular? That "ideal" observer must be assumed to have the same set of morals as the person being observed. If you believe that killing is wrong and the "ideal" thinks it's OK then there is no overlap.
I also reject the libertarian party. They are more conservative than the conservatives.This is a two party system, like it or not. The conservatives are manifestly dangerous, so I have come down on the side of FDR democrats.
this is completely rediculous! you have a video for mr cropper laughing about not being kantian, and yet here you use both his horrifying principles, and his retorics! thumbs up man:)
I don't see how Randy is using Kantian ethics here (*maybe* post-Kantian or he is under the influence of Habermas). In fact, he seems to challenge the libertarian as to how they can make their case without invoking some kind of deontology.
I don't believe anyone is claiming that the state is explicitly out to kill you from the get go - what anti-statists typically argue, relative to taxation, is that if you engage in civil disobedience there will likely be a point at which the state is left with no choice but to initiate aggression. And it's at that point down the line of escalation that the state can explicitly be said to be violent or coercive. I really don't understand how people can deny this.
@brainpolice2 "And it's at that point down the line of escalation that the state can explicitly be said to be violent or coercive. I really don't understand how people can deny this."
@ruzz3ii "No -- the state will not kill you and eliminate a potential source of revenue...what a ridiculous notion!"
Of course the state will try everything else first (it looks bad to have too much overt violence), but the men who will eventually break into your house to kidnap you, will sooner shoot you than retreat and leave you alone.
Its not obvious to me why it is immoral for the state to use proportional force to enforce its prerogatives, any more than it is for me to use proportional force to enforce mine. If somebody were shooting at me to steal from me, it would be ok for me to shoot back. Why wouldn't it be ok for the state to shoot back if somebody were trying to steal from them while shooting?
Stealing is not a normative term; it simply refers to the taking of property without consent from the owner. One need not justify an entire theory of morality to conclude that something is theft.
Furthermore, if a country decided that a Holocaust of atheists would be moral and then proceeded to carry this out, your position would force you to support this political action, ultimately supporting your own murder, which is a strange conclusion.
TheEfkk 1 year ago 2
Apparently you don't understand my position very well.
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
@randyhelzerman It is the logical conclusion of your beliefs about morality.
TheEfkk 1 year ago
@TheEfkk It might be the logical conclusion of how you've misunderstood my beliefs. Or it just may be something irrational which you are saying for no good reason at all :-)
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
interesting @ the end about libertarianism and god ; I personal believe states are a good thing ,but they must be democratically accountable , ie working for the people ,anarchism is nonsense for people drunk on cool aid .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
I don't think I can top MoneyIsSilver's insults, so I am going to take some home grown eggplant and some bread crumbs, and make a nice dinner. Enjoy the beautiful day, everybody!
ruzz3ii 2 years ago
lol sounds good.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
If libertarians object to the theft of the product of one's own labors, why are they so in love with the free market capitalistic system, set up just to do that very thing, for the benefit of the capitalists?
I suppose you are not being coerced into finding a job, after walking around hungry for a few days. I suppose taht we could all set up little vegetable gardens everywhere and be the masters of our own domains. But perhaps this is a topic for another thread.
ruzz3ii 2 years ago
My new rule: I must limit myself to 100 characters or less after that silence or vid THOUGHT PROVOKING
2bsirius 2 years ago
Libertarians are not against collective action so long as it has a voluntary basis. A good example would be a militia. It provides for the common defense and is collective and non profit. Co-ops, charities. Actually even a for profit company is a volntary cooperative organization and as such could very easily be considered "collective".
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So, if somebody points a gun at their kidnappers & tells them to kindly fuck off, it's OK for the kidnappers to shoot that person rather than run away?
DixyHair 2 years ago
No.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Gotta say, I hope a hell of a debate arises out of this subject between you two. All too often this issue seems to be represented by one pious jerk shouting another pious jerk. You dudes are exactly the calm-minded intellectuals needed for an intelligent discussion on the matter.
Dashes000 2 years ago
Thanks Dahses000, I hope so too.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
The state says "your on my "property", I can do whatever I want and anything I do is moral because your very presence is tacit consent" I'm saying "I have exlusive right to my property, and if I deside your presense is not acceptable you do not have the right to insist to stay" If I labored to create the property, your unconditional right to it amounts to my enslavement (the state doesnt create property in this way so cant make the same argument).
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
There still is an analogy, the labor issue aside, which is that you're still claiming tacit consent yourself within that qualification. Your unconditional "right" to decision-making power derived from land is itself not meaningfully different than a state's unqualified authority claim - the only difference being a question of how it was aquired, and perhaps that you establish a proportionality principle relative to violence. But the issue extends beyond one of violence.
brainpolice2 2 years ago 2
Nobody has identical values. Even if you and I both value education, it is doubtful that we do so to identical degrees. I may feel 10% off my iccome be devoted to education, where you may feel 12%. Its bogus to claim that "the common good" mandates this or that amount of any good or service. If I'm very poor it may not be reasonable for me to expend what I make on formal education, who are you (randy) to force me to do so?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
It might be you could do it. I'd like to see a libertarian solution to the prisoner's dilemma. For example: Suppose there was a disease which was very contagious and 100% fatal. We have a vaccine, but it has a 0.001% chance of killing you if you take it. If everybody in the world takes the vaccine, 8,000 people will die, but the diesase will be eradicated. If even one person doesn't take it, the disease will mutate uncontrollably, and everybody on the planet dies!! (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to BlueMountains28) Now suppose there is one person who absolutely refuses to take the vaccine, because they don't want to die when everybody else lives. They claim they have ownership of their body, and the right to make medical decisions for themself, and we have no right to tell them what to put into their body. They are unpersuadable. What's the solution? Yeah, its an extreme case, but a less extreme case is say universal health care. The U.S. pays 3x more per cap (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont to Bluemountains28) than europe does, and has a lower life expectancy. If everybody were forced to buy health insurance, we would pay 3x less per capita and live longer. But a vocal minority doesn't want to be forced to do that. I actually would dearly love to see a libertarian solution to the prisoner's dilemma. To date, the human race has not found any solution to it other than tony soprano's solution: force the prisoner's not to rat each other out on pain of death.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
You can't apply the morality of lifeboat scenarios to everyday life. Survival comes first, but only in situations where survival comes into conflict with, say, property rights, can the latter be compromised.
As for healthcare; our lower life expectancies can easily be attributed to our unhealthy lifestyles, cancer & heart disease patients have a higher life expectancy here, European HC systems have a lot of hidden costs, & the HMO system is a product of gov intervention (see HMO Act of 1973).
DixyHair 2 years ago
Hi DixyHair, if you don't think that lack of healthcare is pertinent to the survival of people, may I humbly suggest that you get a healthy does of contact with reality.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman -- I think that personal threats of violence are way out of line. I hope you take any action you can to ban such individuals from your channel.
1noen1 2 years ago
@BlueMountains28 Thank-you Blue Mountains, I also think the arguments made by libertarians and anarchists are important as well, which is why I think they deserve my best efforts to answer them.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@BlueMountains28 (cont to bluemountains28) This is a very sucessful, time-tested, and pragmatically valid model for building peaceful, progressive, moral, and harmonious societies. It works, and it has been shown to work in many regions of the globe and at many points in history.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@BlueMountains28 (cont, question #3) Dissent in belief should be allowed and encouraged. Also, I think everybody should be accorded the right of nonviolent civil disobedience. This goes back to Socretes (in the apology) and through gandi and martin luther king. If you disagree with a law in society, you have the right to peacefully not obey that law. You must, however, accept the punishment which society meets out for that law. In turn, society cannot kill you. no death penalties. (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@BlueMountains28 Good questions, lets see if I can give satisfactory answers. (1) Yes, substantial voluntary agreement must be present, otherwise intersubjectivity does not obtain. The authority is based on the voluntary agreement. (2) The limits are anything which interferes with the process of reaching voluntary agreement. For example, laws against free speech would be out, because they limit the ability of people to voluntarily agree. slavery, etc, also, or religious tests, etc. (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
If some guy just came into your home and sat down on your couch, would you be intiating force to make him leave? Not really, its your property, and he is trespassing, He does not have the right to the use of your house (else you would be his slave). Although I think proportinality applies, removal from private property is a basic property right. The squater initiated by enterhing your property. But what do you care, rape is fine by you.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Hi lengthyounarther, I'm terminating our conversation, because by saing things like "rape is fine by you" you indicate that you are not conversing in good faith. I do not condone rape or any other violation of human rights and I won't be demonized. Good day.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
How is rape different from a populace eventually releneting to the assault of a state?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Length, your same line of argument can be turned around and used to defend currently existing states as defacto land property owners. This is part of why I abandoned the standard absolutist propertarian arguments.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I've used the term private property, but have not defined it. Depending how I do, it may or may not be possible to defend a state. How you could conclude that I espouse "absolutist propertarian arguments" based on what I've said eludes me. Arguing that the state is a private property owner would extend the consept far beyond reason since the states idea is that it owns however much it wants by decree, a rather different basis than someone building a bar or other business.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
The functionality of a state, whether we want to say that its aquisition of that property is just or not, is as a land property owner. When I speak of propertarianism, I don't refer simply to a question of aquisition, but the notion that ownership justifies an unqualified power over anyone that happens to reside within a claimed geographical area. When you invoke the notion of "if you're on my land, you must abide by whatever rules I establish or I can use force on you", this mirrors the state.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I said you can use force squaters to leave (and I said with proportianate force) ie, you cant just kill people because they accidentally step on you lawn (I know there are people who advocate this). If I have property I can exlude others from it, that doesnt mean I can do whatever I want should they be on my property (which appears to be the posistion you've assigned to me). Pushing an intruder is justifed, blowing his brains out is an offense in itself.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Sure, the proportionality argument against simple shooting is a step in the right direction. But I want to push the question further to questioning the idea that you can literally set up whatever "rules" you want, and whoever is on your land somehow implicitly consents to them or must be subject to being treated as a squatter if they don't. It's that unqualified kind of "rule-making" power I want to doubt.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi brainpolice
*But I want to push the question further to questioning the idea that you can literally set up whatever "rules" you want*
What do you think about the idea that this question may also be best worked out via emergent law?
bitbutter 2 years ago
A property owner does not have an "unqaulified" right to do whatever it wants to a person on his property. The squater has rights to his body regardless of his posistion, but the property owner has a right to exlusivity, which means he can remove the squater (not that he can do whatever he wants without qualification). How much force is justified to accomidate both parties should be determined by a body of law developed by competitive arbitures over time.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I'm not talking about an issue of force, but an issue of decision-making power or rule-making. You are asserting that a land owner has an unqualified right of decision-making power or rule-making, with the sole qualification of proportionality in violence. But it does return to an issue of force as soon as someone doesn't want to abide by your rules and civilly disobeys your request for them to leave. Force will have to enter the picture at that point.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Well originally you said my arguments could justify a state. However since I dont view property rights as granting "unqualifed" power, I dont see how it does. If a squater refuses to leave, you can propotinatly increase force (overaction would be a crime iteself)to get him off your property. If your argument is that a squater can only be asked, but never forced, than the person who's labor provides the property has been either robbed or enslaved.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I'm comparing it to a state insofar as there is the idea that, as a land owner, you can make whatever rules you want within the bounds of non-aggression and anyone that doesn't abide by those rules must be treated as a squatter to be excluded. I'm focusing on the issue of rule-making. So, I could establish a rule, "if you come on my land, you must take your clothes off and let me have sex with you". This doesn't violate the NAP, but it's a ridiculous authority claim.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Property owners are not under any obligation to treat squaters in any paticular way. Should they choose to ignore, remove, reward, or otherwise censure them is up to them.If somebody comes onto your land and you have such a sex rule, it doesnt mean they must have sex with you, only that if they dont have sex with you, you as the property owner have the right to get them off your property.This right is not unqualifed. I have the authroity to remove you, not do whatever I want (unlike states)
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I'm saying that the idea that you can demand whatever you want from people because they are on your land is ridiculous. The "abide by my rule of be forcibly excluded" *is* them having to follow your rule. There ultimately is an implied threat of force down the line. The "authority to remove you if you don't do what I want" is practically the same thing as the authority to do what you want to others on your land. That's where propertarianism gets silly.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I'm not saying you can "demand whatever you want". The only thing you can "demand" is that they leave. If they dont leave, that doesnt mean you can do "whatever you want" only that you can use force to the point of getting them off your property. If the property is legitmate (based on labor and to a lesser degree use) I dont see this as problematic. The state on the other hand does demand whatever it wants and reserves the right to limitless property via decree (not based on labor or use)
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Not really; the land that the state presides over is not the product of the state's labor.
DixyHair 2 years ago
That's missing the point - the issue isn't one of asquisition but an issue of the type or scope of authority that can reasonably be said to be justified by ownership. This is the true problem behind the love it or leave it argument, and libertarians deconstruct themselves the moment that they themselves make a love it or leave it argument based on the sanctity of land property. So, from my perspective, even if the land *was* a product of the state's labor, its authority still wouldn't be just.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
(cont, to blueMountain) so yeah sure, a healthy degree of libertarianism is baked into intersubjective agreement. But when there is a broad consensus about something (e.g. its wrong to kill other people) exists, society has the right to compell agreement in action. Society can compell you not to kill, but it can't compell you to BELEIVE you can't kill.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
*chuckle* well said BlueMountain28, I do think that a healthy dose of libertarianism is a precondition for intersubjective agreement. You can't agree to something if you are not free to disagree about it. Freedom of conscience and belief must be guaranteed for all. I think its ok to force somebody to pay their taxes, but to force somebody to sign an afidavit saying they believe its right to pay taxes is not ok. People need room to disagree. (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Hi blueMountains28, I don't see how it justifies any of that. If you are committing genocide, you are not trying to engage in intersubjective agreement. Same goes with slavery and segretation. These are deviations from intersubjecive morality, not examples thereof.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Bar owners often employ bouncers (or tony sopranoes if you like). They own the bar, if they dont like your behaviour they can tell you to leave. You dont have a right to the use of their bar so if you refuse to leave, its not wrong for them to have their bouncers escort you out any more than its wrong for you to make an unwanted guest enter your home.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Interesting....bar bouncers are very much an example of the initiation of force. I can very well imagine some drunk, while being tossed out of a bar, yelling "...but I didn't sign any contract which said you could toss me out if I got too loud!!!!!!!!" So you do think that the initiation of force is ok under some circumstances.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Sorry the drunk (or other patron) had a choice to go to that bar, or even not to go to the bar at all. To say that he has a right to be there no matter what, would make the people who build and operate the bar slaves. If you have property and allow others to use said property (to drink for instance), you can make said use of property conditinal. You can demand an entrance fee and certain eddicit for instance. People entering your bar consent to this.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Don't you see the deconstruction that takes place with this line of argument? You're using the same line of reasoning that others would use to defend the state.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Monopolies are bad at providing goods and servies. If we had a single institution controling shoe production, the quality and quantity of our shoe supply would be inferior. To say one is opposed to a monopoly on shoe production is not to say one is opposed shoe production. Law is far more important than shoes' but this only makes the potential abuses of a law monopoly even worse.Not only is there such a thing as a private arbitration, but our current law code developed in a statelss society.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You cant say that governments are justified inplicitly by intersubjective consesns and then condemn this or that government action. Jews could have fled germany (many did) and had they resisted (a tiny number did) this would only mean the government was justified in using "proportional force" against them. Nor are historic examples of this limited to germany. The american south rebelled violently for 4 years, does the fact that they were crushed equate to their concent to be ruled?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
ha, not often do we get the north's victory in the civil war compared to the holocaust, but no, the norths victory didn't cause the south to consent to be ruled at all. Rather it was the reverse: the south could have staged a very effective gurilla war, concievably lasting until today. But they didn't; they stopped fighting and decided to rejoin the union.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Here again your justifing any and all conquests. This does justify rape, because as long as the woman fails to stop the rapists it means she consents. She could kick and sceame for an hour, but if evently he beats the shit out of her enough that she does not resiste his final thrust, she's consented and its not rape. Likewise failing to stop and invader means the invader has your consent and hence is justified in any act.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Hi lengthyounarther, yeah I just don't see how you get to those conclusions.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Your the one who said that by not continuing the civil war via gurilla war southerners are concenting to the federal government and hence whatever it does to them. By this reasoning rape is perfectly ethical, unless the woman succeddes in escaping in which case actual rape doesnt even occure. If however the rapists succeddes this is consent. What do you not understand about this reasoning?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Hi lengthyounarther, look man, in this world if you want something you've got to fight for it. Your guardian angel isn't going to protect you with God's grace. "Give me liberty or give me death!" are not just some idle words dude. If you stop fighting for it, its gone.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Where did I say you should just be given things, or expect to just be given things? What statements of mine led you to this outburst? Saying goods and serviese should be exchanged on a voluntary basis, does not mean that they will just be given freely. In practice it means that they will be sold and the only way to recieve them is if you work and are willing to pay for them. If your unwilling to do so, you wont have anything at all.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Just wait a minute. You said that morals come from society; but, the Confederacy, which effectively was their own society, believed it wrong for the Union to invade. Now, is it OK for one society to invade another? How do you determine that in the absence of a larger mega-society of which those two societies are a part? And what if there's no consensus?
DixyHair 2 years ago
Yes, he has already said that since the southerns eventually stopped fighting they were consenting to the federal government. When I said this could be used to justfiy rape, he got mad and said he wont talk to me.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Hi DixyHair, lol, your name indicates I probably have a pretty small chance of persuading you :-) but here's how I see it. The confederacy isn't an example of the absence of a larger mega-society. The mega-society existed (the united states) and the south stopped trying to reach intersubjective agreement with the north when it rebelled. The civil war illustrates the horrors which happen when people stop trying to reach intersubjective agreement. YMMV, I understand your view might differ:-)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
but regardless of whether the confederacy is an example of this or not, your question of what to do when no consensus obtains is a valid and urgent question. I think if no consensus obtains, then nobody can be very sure whether they are right or wrong. And in absence of such consensus, it is not moral to use force.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
So since the war and bailouts and marijiana laws are opposed by a majority, ( to name only a few) at the very least there is not a consensus and as such taxation for these activities are not moral? But if I tell the IRS I'm only paying for the "servies' that have consensus I'll go to jail, and you'll support my imprisonment as justified.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I think if no consensus obtains, then nobody can be very sure whether they are right or wrong. And in absence of such consensus, it is not moral to use force."
On this view, in the case of those who do not recognise the legitimacy of the state, and tax, no consensus obtains; thus it is immoral for the state to use violence to extract taxes.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Noen even within the governments own framework of claimed legitimacy, the constitution, they have broken the contract by violating the 10th amendment by ignoring it rather then amending it
The 10th amendment says any powers not explicitly stated in the constitution are up to the states or the people, they then proceed to list these powers.
Following the constitution on an ad hoc basis is dangerous if they disregard the 10th amendment what will stop them from disregarding the 1st
AaronKilleen 2 years ago
Dont your arguments morally justfiy any and every act by every government in history. Was the Holocaust OK because the jews that died had consented by not having left? What about the million murdered by the Soviet or Chinese governments, or would you also consider their deaths as "for their own good" because the government is a "meter stick" to society and as such has unlimited moral authority to determine whats our best interests?How does your idea not justfify any and all types of conquest?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago 2
Hi lengthyounarther, in the unfortunate cases you mentioned, I would say that the governments were not good meter sticks. Its possible for a meter stick to shrink or break, and its possible for governments to malfunction as well. I would count them therefore as deviations from Intersubjective morality rather than examples of it. BTW, I'm open to suggestions as to alternatives: what do you think makes murder and conquest wrong, if its not that it tramples upon intersubjective agreement?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Well one thing I woudl suggest is that whenever two parties agree without any threat of coersian, its safe to say that both benifit. Most of the goods and services we all use are provided in this way. If one party is not willing to make an exchange its very dubious to claim the exchange is in their best interests (if it were forcing them to pay would not be nessisary).
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I agree that utmost respect should be payed to voluntary agreement, and it is one of the most reliable indicators of goodness we have. But its not infalable: for example, a teacher and a student might disagree that the student should learn to read. This would be, IMHO, to the detriment of the student.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Its not that simple. Firstly this is a bad example because the student is probably not the one paying the teacher. I value ecuation a great deal and have spent lots of my time and money to educate myself. If however somebody else values other things more to the effect that they only want to pay for half as much education as I have, I dont see how it can be claimed that my favored level of education is in their best interests.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Well, I think its prettty obvious that being surrounded by highly educated, well informed, cultuered and literate people has its advantages, so it might be in the public interest to encourage such a society.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Encouragment is fine, but advocating state mandates goes a bit further than "encouragment". Its a fallacy to say that being against the state provision of a good or service (like education for instance) means you are agains said good or service. Do you think the government should control shoe production? If not, does that mean you want everyone to go barefoot? If people have to be forced to subsidize your ideals saying their in their best interest is dubious at best.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Actually if two parties agree voluntarily its as close to the best interests of each party as can be determined (far closer than when one party is forced to pay on threat of incarceration). Since the child is rarely the one paying its not even a valid example. They child isnt the one paying the teacher, the parents are (probably). The exchange is between the parent and the teacher not the teacher and student so calling the student teacher arrangment voluntary is false.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Is it objectively wrong to disobey societal norms? If so, moral relativism completely self-implodes, & if not...it just implodes.
I'd say that morality is just a product of our emotions, that it's completely subjective. That being said, the belief that shit smells bad is also subjective. People already believe that what the state does is immoral, they just don't realize it; you need only be CONSISTENT in the common stance that extortion, murder, etc is wrong, & the state is wrong by corollary.
DixyHair 2 years ago
In other words, the state ALREADY violates societal norms, it already does things that if done by anybody else would be considered immoral, people just hold an illogical double-standard & give the state a free pass.
DixyHair 2 years ago
Hi DixyHair, I like to compare morals with paper money. Objectively, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper with no value. But since everybody treats it as money, it has value. Not objective value but intersubjective value. Same for morality; marriage e.g. is constructed by society but its still wrong to cheat on your wife. And sure, the state can and does diverge from intersubjectively accepted moral practice. But taxation isn't an example; there is broad consensus that taxation is legit.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
"Hi lengthyounarther, in the unfortunate cases you mentioned, I would say that the governments were not good meter sticks. Its possible for a meter stick to shrink or break, and its possible for governments to malfunction as well."
And according to what standard did they malfunction, if they are the ultimate arbiter of what is right & wrong?
"I would count them therefore as deviations from Intersubjective morality rather than examples of it."
Nazi Germany was the product of its culture.
DixyHair 2 years ago
Hi DixyHair, I would say that where nazi germany went wrong was that it refused to try to reach intersubjective agreement with its Jewish minority. It would therefore be an example of what can go wrong if you don't try to reach intersubjective agreement. I think the laws of a society are only moraly justifyable if they are the result of an intersubjective consenses of as many people as you can bring into the process of as possible.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
So a government that doesnt reach consensus with its anti tax libertarians is in the "wrong". Who's to say what is, and is not an "intersubjective consensus"? How can it even be actualtly known? YOu might as well say that the "will of god" rule. You keep saying the government is justified because of ISC, if so whats the basis for saying it lacks ISC? If Germany had an ISC, would you conclude that the holocoust was ok? A majority once thought slavery ok, so according to you, it was.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I have to disagree, the religious right isn't Libertarians, they have some ideas in common, but so does progressive liberals. The drug war for instance...
Platypus2048 2 years ago
hi Platypus2048, perhaps I should have said "the degree to which the religious right is internally consistent is the degree to which they are libertarian" or some such :-)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Sure, we would ALL like to have secret police monitoring our every move and legions of stormstroopers to remove undesirables, but WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT ALL???
urbanelf 2 years ago
*chuckle*
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@urbanelf, I know you were being sarcastic but that is exactly why I don't think anarchism has a future.
Weaponry will inevitably increase in power, ease of construction and portability. There will come a time when I can go into my backyard shed and make a device that will kill millions.
The often irrational human, and perhaps the earth, can only survive under a global, intrusive police state.
gph61 2 years ago
Hi gph61, disturbing, yet disturbingly hard to refute, dark reflections, here.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Comment removed
gph61 2 years ago
Hi randyhelzerman, disturbing I know and I don't see a way out nor do I think it's that far off. The LHC could push it over the edge.
Unless there's something I'm missing it's not that hard to foresee government, likely in the form of a computer, watching us take a dump.
gph61 2 years ago
I'm sure in many cases it already does.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
You know, those legions of stormtroopers would be much more efficient if they were provided as part of the free market ;)
bitbutter 2 years ago
lol my pleasure variablast.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Any tax free state is likely to become an evolutionary dead end.
Kuwait was the only tax free state I could find.
Even in that example, Kuwait would not be a tax free state today had their butts not been saved in 1990 by others.
iviewthetube 2 years ago
Intersubjective consensus =/= the State determining what is moral!
Also, if it be the case that the anti-statist face the is-ought dichotomy then that is also true for the Statist, AND the fact that taxation is the current way of the world makes taxation no more a default human position and above the burden of proof. I think that in this video you allude to anti-statism only hinging on a particular view of morality and don't take into consideration the economic/pragmatic args.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Hi Chrisnoscrubb047, well this video didn't have the general goal of refuting libertarianism, it just was to answer bitbutter's question. Sure, the state can be out of sync with the intersubjective consensus--but it also could be in sync with the intersubjective consensus, and in those cases the answer to bitbutter's quesitons are clearly "no".
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
A quick note on the ideal observer theory "you should do something if the ideal observer thinks you should do it"
That's not what the theory states as i understand it. Instead you should do x rather than y if the ideal observer would _prefer_ x over y.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Oh: important point, I mentioned IOT, but i've never subscribed to that theory.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Ok, thanks for clarifying that bitbutter.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
"if society decides that it's moral to tax you, then it is moral to tax you"
Wow. Really? On your view then, was it moral to burn witches? (while society had decided that that's what should be done) And if not, why not?
bitbutter 2 years ago 4
If "society" (or in this case, the State, since in the video he says it is the STATE that decides what is moral) decides that it is moral to torture men with the youtube username: randyhelzerman every saturday for the rest of his life, because he had the youtube username at one point in time, then that means it is currently moral to torture men with youtube username: randyhelzerman every saturday for the rest of his life, b/c he had the youtube user name at one point in time.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Hi bitbutter, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Society cannot be wrong when it comes to morality. If you don't think that is correct, then pray tell, what makes it wrong to burn witches? Or collect taxes? Or steal? Is it God? Is it some platonic ideal of morality? What makes me wrong and you right about this? There is a glaring lack of answer to this question.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
It sounds to me like you lack a moral compass of your own and need a paternal state figure to tell you what's right and wrong. Not everyone is like that. Some people understand that morality is leaving other people alone unless they infringe on your rights, then there is a dispute. Also, society =/= government. Society can be a group of individuals who work in the private sector, earning their money through voluntary trade. Government is entirely composed of people living off extortion.
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago 2
Hi MoneyIsSilver, if you don't like my answer about where morals come from, tell me where they do. Saying they come from a "moral compass" is pretty vague. What does that mean? You may not like my answer, but at least I have an answer--a specific, concrete answer which we can use to determine what to do.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
I don't like saying "they come from" anywhere. That's like asking, "where does nature come from?" Do morals have a place they're going if they came FROM somewhere. That doesn't make sense. Morality is right and wrong. Where does right or wrong come from? These aren't logical questions. You have agreed that stealing another's property is immoral - what made you say that? do you need the state to tell you that stealing is immoral, or do you just know that?
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago
Hi MoneyIsSilver, I have a straigtforward, unambigouous answer to give you as to why stealing is wrong: there is intersubjective agreement that it is wrong. So its not impossible to give an answer to these questions. You might not like my answer, but do you have a better one? If you don't have an answer to that question, how can you say I'm wrong and you are right?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Now you're saying that I can't answer your question from lack ofr an answer when I just explained your question of "where do morals come from" is not a valid question to begin with. Morals do not travel from one source to another, they just are. I won't get into the difference between intersubjective agreements and government cause I see others on here have argued that difference more than adequately for you. Furthermore, morality doesn't "come from" ISA, ISAs recognize morality.
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago
Hi MoneyIsSilver, the reason I don't think "morals just are" is a very useful explanation of why I'm wrong is this: any gasbagger could say that. For example, I could say that too: "Its just true that taxation is good. no reason, its just good for no reason at all". Are you convinced? do you feel like you've gotten a real answer? No? Well, neither do I. I don't really think you can justifiably claim that you are right and I am wrong on that basis.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
My video assumes a moral common ground with those i'm trying to persuade. If you believe that the behaviour of the witch hunters, the nazis and the spanish inquisition were moral because they were widely approved of by the societies they took place in, then I don't share that necessary moral common ground with you.
bitbutter 2 years ago
For the record, I don't believe that any of those were moral, because there is an intersubjective agreement that they were not moral. But you still have not given me any reason to believe that I should answer your 2 questions with "yes" rather than "no". If you are right and I am wrong about this, you should be able to articulate why. I might not agree with your answer, but you should at least be able to state one. I find it interesting that you don't.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman "I don't believe that any of those were moral, because there is an intersubjective agreement that they were not moral"
You believe that they _were_ moral, in the places and times in which they took place, correct?
bitbutter 2 years ago
No bitbutter, I don't. There has been intersubjective agreement that murder is wrong long before the nazi's came along, and long after. The nazi's were devients from intersubjective morality, not examples of it.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Randy, the real question then is what how big is the domain of subjects for which moral intersbujectivity matters? If the domain is all people who have ever and who will ever live (or all sapient creatures or something else) then it seems like one society (as we use the term)'s laws say almost nothing about morality.
shuyande24 2 years ago
Well that's an interesting point shuyande24. I think we should include in the domain as many people as are willing to in good faith try to reach intersubjective agreement with us. We don't have to include nazi's, becuse they have no interest in reaching intersubjective agreement with Jews, for example. And sure, our current laws certainly contain countless points which we will later consider to be wrong. But as long as they reflect the current consensus what else could we do?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Annnnnd once again we are in bed with Nietzsche, the hairy old dude. solving the question of how we ground or sense of moral right and wrong is a tough nut. Far tougher than dealing with Glibertarain idiots. THEY certainly lack the tools to deal with it.
1noen1 2 years ago
"It seems like what you're asking is: is it moral for the state to tax you"
No, i'm not asking that. The fact that something is an example of stealing does not mean that we morally condemn it (i'm sure that you can think of instances of stealing that seem justified).
I'm only asking if you can acknowledge that the state does in fact steal from people. (Bear in mind the person snatching the fish out of your hand on desert island).
bitbutter 2 years ago
hi bitbutter, this may be just a verbal thing, but no, I can't imagine a case in which stealing is morally justified---because "steal" is a moral term. Its like asking is there a case in which an immoral act is morally justified. In the case of taxation, I don't believe the money you pay in taxes is your property to begin with, so no, I don't believe stealing happens, nor do I see any analogy with the fish case.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman you said *I can't imagine a case in which stealing is morally justified---because "steal" is a moral term.*
I've created a document that describes the location of a nuclear device. You live next door and have overheard me discussing a plan to detonate the device, which would kill millions. When i'm not around you break in, and take the document, so that the device can be found and disarmed.
You've stolen the document, surely?
bitbutter 2 years ago
I'm only stealing if I'm taking your property. If society says that you may not own anything which you will use to kill millions of people, then its not your property, and taking it won't be stealing. You keep proposing these point scenarios, bitbutter, but what I'd like to know is some general principle I can use to determine when something is stealing and when something isn't. You may not like my answer, but at least I have an answer: its stealing if there is a consensus that its stealing.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@bitbutter
I'm walking down the street and see someone on fire. I notive you have a well on your property so I climb your fence grab a bucket of water, and put the fire out. Did I steal your water?
Now in order to remain consistent (stealing is stealing is stealing) I assume you would say yes.
I say GOOD LUCK having me arrested, you'd be laughed at if you tried.
Likewise the state has the right to tax you to pay to put out metaphorical people on fire.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
Not just other people who are on fire, but you as well if you were to spontaneously combust. Whether you explicitly agree to it or not, no one is going to let you burn.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
In fact the only way you can avoid people climbing your fence and "stealing" your water to put people on fire out, or avoid having someone put you out if you're on fire, is to move where there are no people. Or to a place where people are perfectly happy to let people burn because they believe their property rights take precedence over the greater good.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist "Likewise the state has the right to tax you to pay to put out metaphorical people on fire."
Where does this imagined 'right' come from?
bitbutter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
- Where does this imagined 'right' come from?
It comes from societal consensus, as opposed to your so called "right" not be taxed which comes entirely out of thin air.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist
"It comes from societal consensus,"
Ah. So might makes right.
According to your logic, if the societal consensus was that it was ok to hang black people (as it has been in various places through the ages), the state would have the right to do that too.
What a revolting anti-human outlook you have.
bitbutter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"if the societal consensus was that it was ok to hang black people (as it has been in various places through the ages), the state would have the right to do that too."
Obviously the state had the "right" to do so, since it was legally acceptable. If you're asking whether it was "morally right" that's a different issue.
I think since we almost universally agree NOW that black people are "human beings" (which wasn't always the case), they have the same rights as everyone else.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
If at some point in the future society decides that all cows, and pigs have the right to life. Would that mean that retroactively it was NEVER your right to eat a steak?
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*it may not have ever been "morally" right, but you did have the right.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist You said: "Likewise the state has the right to tax you"
It's trivially true that the sate's own rules (law) say that the state can tax me. So the state has a _legal right_ to tax me, sure. That's not being contested and hardly needs mentioning.
I took you to mean that the state has a _moral_ right to tax me because societal consensus. Is this correct? and if so, how do you resist the conclusion that the state also has a moral right to hang racial minorities?
bitbutter 2 years ago
-how do you resist the conclusion that the state also has a moral right to hang racial minorities?
Once again I'll ask you to tell me who determines what is, or isn't moral, you? God?, a coin toss?
What society consider moral is basically it's members coming to a compromise.
If you asking if it's right (morally from my perspective in this time, and place). No.
I think it is morally wrong to eat meat (though I so out of convenience). Some people think it's as immoral as hanging blacks.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
So if you eat meat, and see nothing wrong with it is it morally right?
What about 100 years from now when most people have been convinced it's morally wrong, and have outlawed it. Is it then morally wrong. What has changed other than subjective consensus?
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*do so
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"If you asking if it's right (morally from my perspective in this time, and place). No."
I'm glad to hear it. So from your perspective, the principle of societal consensus as a basis for the justification for the actions of a state, has a serious problem: namely that it can lead to actions that run in opposition to what is morally acceptable. Thus, from your perspective, it cannot be the case that the state derives any kind of moral right from societal consensus.
bitbutter 2 years ago
-it can lead to actions that run in opposition to what is morally acceptable
If you're say the states actions can act in way that go against consensus I disagree, accept in the most extreme, and short term ways.
Example Iraq war. Even at it's worst 35-40% still supported it. A certain percentage thought we should withdraw immediately, and a certain percentage thought we should withdraw over time. The consensus was long term withdrawal. It was a compromise between immediate, and never.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"If you're say the states actions can act in way that go against consensus I disagree, accept in the most extreme, and short term ways."
No, i'm saying that actions that are in accord with consensus run in opposition to what is morally acceptable to both of us. Do you agree?
bitbutter 2 years ago
-No, i'm saying that actions that are in accord with consensus run in opposition to what is morally acceptable to both of us. Do you agree?
Obviously the state does things that I consider immoral, but overall I think it is more moral (by my standard of morality) than the average person. In other words the consensus favors my position.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Ok. So you also agree that societal consensus is not capable of bringing into existence a 'moral right' to do X if that right didn't already exist?
bitbutter 2 years ago
continued..
I use the example of the Iraq war because on the face of it it seems to be a clear cut case of the state being involved in an "immoral" war. However it was, and continues to be a war that is supported by societal consensus.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"Once again I'll ask you to tell me who determines what is, or isn't moral, you? God?, a coin toss?"
I hope you'll excuse me; I don't want to get into that. What matters most for me is that our moral judgments are largely aligned. (eg. we both think that hanging people because they are of the wrong skin colour is morally unacceptable). From this shared ground we can agree, i hope, that societal consensus doesn't provide anything that we could call a 'moral right'.
bitbutter 2 years ago
wait a second, now. Did you need society to tell you that stealing is immoral?
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago
Hi money is silver, I think so. If you don't think so, why not? What makes stealing immoral? God's laws?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Stealing is immoral because it is injury to another - that simple. It can only be justified if it is done to prevent injury to others.
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago
I can work with that. I think that forcing you to pay your taxes is not an injury to you; on the contrary, it is beneficial to you in countless ways, from paying for national defense, to education, advancing the sciences and arts, etc....
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
So is what is personally benifical to somebody is also subject to "intersubjective concensus? Defense, education, advancing the sciences have in the past (and to some extent still are) provided by mutal and explicit agreement between both the provider and consumer, without the threat of imprisonment for the consumers own good. If a majority is Christian, can forced conversian simply be justified as "in the best interests" of anybody who would rather not be converted?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
The problems I see with his core reasoning here were addressed very well in the video response by Stargazer. If a child who's old enough to grasp what rape is is given an explanation of it, they wouldn't find whether or not is right to be a moral quandary -- but based of Randy's explanation they would, since the morality of a thing is determined by consensus (agreement by the majority in a given society).
regresseur 2 years ago
Um....I don't see how my views could be used to justify rape. can you clarify?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
I cant see how giving people syphilis is in their best interests, but out government did it to black people. Since the military did this should we not conclude that it was in their best interests and benifited them greatly because they need "defense"? Did they not "consent" to this treatment? Based on your reasoning I dont see how we can find fault in things like this since according to you, by its very existance the state and whatever actions it takes is consented to by a populace.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Where in that comment did I state that your views could be used to justify rape?
Again: If a child who's old enough to grasp what rape is was given an explanation of it, they probably wouldn't find, at that moment, whether or not rape is good to be a moral quandary -- but based on your explanation they very well may, since according to your reasoning the morality of a thing is determined by consensus (agreement by the majority in a given society, or what have you).
regresseur 2 years ago
hi lengthyounarther, sure, what is personally benificial to you is also subject to intersubjective agreement. For example, we might deny young children or old people a driver's licence, even though they might not personally agree with it. I totallly admit that these cases are on the same scale as forced conversions, and I see the drawbacks of my answer. But I see real dangers with everybody being able to make up their own laws too. If you have a better answer, lets hear it.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Its a false dichcotomy to say that the government is not legitimate, hence "everybody gets to make up their own law". Private property solves the dilema your talking about. For instance roads can be funed by voluntary market transactions (roads were not invented by the state, and today there are many non tax based toll roads. Its very easy to negotiate conditions in a private contract (you cant drive one this road unless you pay and meet certain safty requirments.)
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
but even with private roads, you are still subjecting people to intersubjective agreement. Suppose you had a private road, and prohibited me from driving on it. I could just say "sorry, its not in my own best interest not to drive on your road". who is going to tell me I'm wrong? Sure, you could hire tony soprano to kick me of your road, but that doesn't make you right, it just makes you stronger.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
If I tell you that you may not drive on my road, thats not based on intersubjetive consensus. If I build a road, I have the right to put conditions on its use. Normially this would probably mean charging a fee for use. To say otherwise is to say others have a right to the products of my labor (slavery). As long as I'm not the only person allowed to provide roads or other forms of transit, competition will drive down the price and drive up the quality of my road service.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Randy you said:
"What the state will do, is that in proportion to what you are doing to resist it, the state will meet that measure back out to you"
That's not quite true. Since if you do _nothing_ (and you haven't paid your taxes), the state will kidnap you by dragging you away. Because they're in the role of predatory aggressor, there's an asymmetry in force used right at the start.
bitbutter 2 years ago 2
hi bitbutter, "proportional" doesnt' mean the ratio of response is 1 to 1. It means that the state will ratchet up its response as you ratchet up yours. it will always make the first move, but doesn't directly go to killing you, or even kidnapping you. First move is just sending you a polite letter asking you write them a check or work out a payment plan.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman "the state will meet that measure back out to you" is the part that's out of sync with reality. It's a minor point though.
bitbutter 2 years ago
This was a good response, but I still think the essential point remains - states undoubtedly engage in unjust actions at times. Of course all anarchists and many libertarians overstate their case whilst playing down the clear and distinct problems of individualism.
I think what gets people down is the feeling that the state has all-consuming authority. It's natural to chafe against this; to desire power and to resent those who hold it.
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
Isn't the idea of an "ideal" observer determining what is moral circular? That "ideal" observer must be assumed to have the same set of morals as the person being observed. If you believe that killing is wrong and the "ideal" thinks it's OK then there is no overlap.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
Hi thatgaybloke, I certainly think so.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@thatgaybloke
That's exactly what came to my mind.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You a libertarian? Crickey! Glad you got over it.
grenangle 2 years ago
I also reject the libertarian party. They are more conservative than the conservatives.This is a two party system, like it or not. The conservatives are manifestly dangerous, so I have come down on the side of FDR democrats.
ruzz3ii 2 years ago
this is completely rediculous! you have a video for mr cropper laughing about not being kantian, and yet here you use both his horrifying principles, and his retorics! thumbs up man:)
ObjectivstK 2 years ago
@ObjectivstK and i would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!!!!!
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
kantian scum!
bubonicnate 2 years ago
I don't see how Randy is using Kantian ethics here (*maybe* post-Kantian or he is under the influence of Habermas). In fact, he seems to challenge the libertarian as to how they can make their case without invoking some kind of deontology.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
No -- the state will not kill you and eliminate a potential source of revenue...what a ridiculous notion!
Laws are AGREEMENTS. We agree to pool our resources. Every tea bagger understands Costco -- what is so hard to understand about taxes?
ruzz3ii 2 years ago
I don't believe anyone is claiming that the state is explicitly out to kill you from the get go - what anti-statists typically argue, relative to taxation, is that if you engage in civil disobedience there will likely be a point at which the state is left with no choice but to initiate aggression. And it's at that point down the line of escalation that the state can explicitly be said to be violent or coercive. I really don't understand how people can deny this.
brainpolice2 2 years ago 2
@brainpolice2 "And it's at that point down the line of escalation that the state can explicitly be said to be violent or coercive. I really don't understand how people can deny this."
Yes.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@ruzz3ii "No -- the state will not kill you and eliminate a potential source of revenue...what a ridiculous notion!"
Of course the state will try everything else first (it looks bad to have too much overt violence), but the men who will eventually break into your house to kidnap you, will sooner shoot you than retreat and leave you alone.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Its not obvious to me why it is immoral for the state to use proportional force to enforce its prerogatives, any more than it is for me to use proportional force to enforce mine. If somebody were shooting at me to steal from me, it would be ok for me to shoot back. Why wouldn't it be ok for the state to shoot back if somebody were trying to steal from them while shooting?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago