Top Comments
All Comments (136)
-
@cynicist First, you may want to take more than a few seconds next time. Second, if you did, you may realize that with or without objective morality we can do whatever the hell we are capable of doing, including punish people for their behavior. However, we should not, in my subjective opinion. Finally, for something to qualify as any sort of masturbation, it ought to be pleasurable. That is,again,my subjective opinion, which is superior to your own subjective opinion in my subjective opinion.
-
STEFBOT, to clarify what I mean: Cavemen A and B were walking out under the great blue sky over the great green earth, common heritage of all living things, when caveman A said, "This is all mine now. Get off or die." Caveman B said, "WTF, no it's not," whereupon he recived a spear through the ribs courtesy of C.A. Thousands of years later, C.A's descendants or those who purchased from them or killed them in like manner, still claim the ground is theirs, and enforce this theft via police.
-
Retarded people keep responding to my comments. How do I get a question to Stefbot? STEFBOT, how does ownership of land - the sold-and-bought or inherited consequence of the taking by force of said land by some people from everyone else, and maintained still by force today - jive with the non-aggression principle? In short, how can you support land ownership, given that it was created and is maintained by aggressive use of force.
-
Well I took a few seconds and came to the conclusion that if there is no objective standard for morality then we as a society cannot punish individuals based on their behavior. (since what is right depends entirely on your beliefs) I'm not sure you have completely thought that position through. Debating subjective reality is like debating god. There is no evidence for it and it is impossible to prove either way, so it is essentially mental masturbation. Btw check out stef's UPB.
-
@cynicist Well, that's pretty much a given by now, but you can figure it out for youself by taking about 10 minutes to try to think up an objective moral standard. Of course, you have to understand what 'objective' and 'subjective' mean. To give you a clue into the enormity of the task before you, note that we can't even be certain that there is an objective reality. If you do figure out how to demonstrate the objectivity of some moral standard, publish it and be famous.
-
@brindlebriar What makes you think morality is subjective?
-
I have always been of libertarian/anarchist persuasion, long before I had heard of the terms, but 1) Morality is not objective. 2) Property rights are justifiable - according to YOUR morality - only for created property that is created out of non-scarce resources. I invite you to consider that second point in light of this premise: land is owned because it was taken by force, from the other humans who existed at the time, and from all the unborn generations who ever may come to exist.
-
You talk tooooooo fast. Please I beg of you, slow down. I dont know if you have addressed this subject before but if that is the case, please reconcider ;)
-
How can you thrust those defence agencies, today only rich walk around with bodygards, why would they just always listen to the rich just for extra funds they can get them. I want you baloon to go up and hopefully lift evrybody away from this idiotic sitem but if it pops and and we fall back to the we won't be 1/100 of free as we are now. The state will do all to prevent a second trie and if falling down to slavery puts inoubidient philosofers pulling rocks to make pyramids they wil do it.
naughty philosophy must be spanked......L M A O
TheJovanist 1 year ago 18
But you (stef) could function in a stateless society, even tought, and correct me if I'm wrong, your upbringing took place in a rigid and strict family.
Isn't that making a rule and putting yourself as an exception?
D3mi4n 1 year ago 6