|
Hmm, "fairenough" deleted his post so I guess he's not interested anymore.
|
|
|
|
Lickus Mis Scrotum
Know how I you know you're I'm 12 years old?
Because you make childish insults? |
|
|
|
I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.
Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type. At least he's logically consistent. If people need a national government to avoid or mediate interpersonal conflicts then national governments need a world government to avoid or mediate international conflicts. Of course, once we have a worldwide democracy, India and China will run the show. |
|
|
|
In all of my research regarding the law, the proper role of government, and other similar systems, I just can't seem to see the possibility of a perfect anarchy, or left of anarchy, such as some version of libertarianism. see: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902Which is to say, if we all played by the obvious rules (do no harm, do as you have agreed to) then society could be perfectly content with an anarchy. That of course, isn't what we have. There are, and always will be criminals and they will still break the basic tenets of a orderly society. They can't keep their hands to themselves. So what do we do? The only thing we can. Provide for a means of punishment. Presumably these punishments should be proportional to the crime, but significant enough such that the would-be criminal might think twice about what he/she is about to attempt. Of course, even that isn't a sufficient enough deterrent for some, but that's the best we can do. As it were, "an eye for an eye". So here's the question. Do we let governments compete for the definition of what law is, or do we permit the few (whoever they are) whom we vote in as overseers of this process, and put checks and balances in place so they can't arbitrarily circumvent the basic principles? I think, although I can't be sure, that if we had a menagerie of competing governments, it's likely that they would eventually devolve into feudal waring tribes. I could imagine them each seeking retribution on the other for violations of their societal laws. This would go on forever. It would be nice if there was a universal standard, but even given the rhetoric of these threads/forums, even the basics can't be agreed upon. Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law. |
|
|
|
Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you. That's like saying "I don't have to steal from you, I can just ask someone else to do it for me and then receive the stolen property". That's called aiding and abetting. There are plenty of other alternatives. The one I favour is respecting each others opinions while disagreeing. My morality will prevent me from initiating violence anyway and even in the case of self defence, I will look for alternatives (such as running away). Right, so you refuse to do your own dirty work but you have no problem advocating thugs in blue costumes doing it for you. |
|
|
|
we are all a part of the culture we are a part of. like it or not. Culture does not equal the state. the world doesn't owe me - or anybody - a living. but i have no problem with helping out my brothers and sisters - the better they do the better i do. Good, then you pay for it. |
|
|
|
do i hate the state?
that would be all of us. including myself. Speak for yourself. I didn't sign anything. I'm not anymore in a relationship with the rest of the world than a rape victim is in a relationship with their rapist. attends to our medical needs as a human right? Here's another thing I hate. This general sense of entitlement. You're not entitled to anything but to be left alone. Food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc are not rights. The world does not owe you a living. |
|
|
|
Again again again again again, you were asked to justify why your beliefs should be followed even if it brings the end of the world. I said "regardless of consequences". That would include the end of the world. Like I said (several times now), I can't justify why people should think stealing is wrong, regardless of consequences, anymore than I can justify why people should think blue is a pretty color. You either agree with me or you don't. Work on your reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
You're supposed to be justifying everyone following your beliefs even if it's guaranteed to destroy the planet, remember? Like I said (several times now), I can't justify why people should think stealing is wrong, regardless of consequences, anymore than I can justify why people should think blue is a pretty color. You either agree with me or you don't. |
|
|
|
You need to justify the consequences affected in the real world because of those opinions. If the opinions are not the cause of anything you affected in the real world, then nobody cares about your opinion. This whole discussion is predicated on the premise that there are consequences to your opinions. Otherwise, all of your opinions are moot. You shouldn't do things that are wrong. If you do something that is wrong, you should pay restitution. Stealing is wrong. Therefore you shouldn't steal. If you do steal, you should pay restitution. If you mean consequences other than that, you'll need to clarify. |
|
|
|
If you try hard enough, you'll understand what he said. If you try hard enough, maybe you can make a cogent point. |
|
|
|
Your moral opinions are irrelevant. The fact that there are only moral opinions is very relevant. Opinions aren't justified because they are subjective. I no more need to justify why I think theft is wrong than I do why I think blue is a pretty color. |
|
|
|
Right, because those oil producing countries never import anything. Nah, they just want to hoard gold, which for some reason would hurt us. |
|
|
|
No one said anything about moral facts. Unless you want to claim there are moral facts, that only leaves moral opinions. |
|
|
|
Your perverse and fallacious logic only undermines any credibility you might have. Whether you believe blue is ugly or not is irrelevant when you don't act on that opinion. Likewise, your opinion about murder is irrelevant if you don't act on that opinion. However, if you act on your opinion regarding blue (i.e. affect change in the world or prevent change in the world), then you may be called upon to justify your beliefs about blue. Likewise, if you affect change in the world or prevent change in the world regarding your beliefs about murder, then you may find a hatchet buried in your back unless you can find a compelling argument in defense of your beliefs about murder.
Now, normally I despise your intellectually bankrupt statements, but in this case, your unnecessary digression into logic, belief and morality afforded an excellent opportunity to point out what a peacock you are when engaging in debate. Can you show the existence of a single unqualified moral fact? No? Then my point stands, no matter what kind of names you call me. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is, if Libya wanted to create a "gold dinar" currency and then use that to accept as payment for its oil... why wouldn't it just accept straight gold bullion in the first place?
If a gold dinar is gold, then why not just use Kruggerands? You don't need to make a new currency out of gold if you wish to use gold as currency, right?
What am I missing?
I think it has something to do with Islamic law requiring pure gold whereas Krugerrands aren't. |
|
|
|
My views on theft depend on the consequences. They shouldn't anymore than murder or rape should. I don't believe that it is an absolute wrong like murder or initiatory violence. We have a fundamental difference in opinion where you believe in the sanctity of property and I don't. Yes, we do. I can promise you that I won't touch you or your property first but it seems like you aren't willing to offer me the same respect. We have two mutually exclusive opinions and if one of us can't convince the other to change his mind, the only alternative is violence. |
|
|
|
Not always. Then my previous criticism stands. You're looking at the consequences and deciding if the action is right or wrong based on that. You've got it backwards. You need to first decide what actions are right or wrong and then accept whatever consequences they entail. Someone starving stealing food is not immoral either in my opinion. Even if you steal as a matter of life and death, you should still be forced to pay restitution because it's still wrong. It's not something owed to you just because you are hungry. If it weren't wrong then you wouldn't be expected to pay for your crime. |
|
|
|
I'm starting with a goal, attempting to find actions that will make progress towards it and discounting any actions that I find immoral. So you don't think theft is immoral? |
|
|
|
|
You're taking the wrong approach. You're starting with some kind of goal in mind and then deciding how to reach that goal through various actions. Instead, you need to decide what kind of actions are permissible and then figure out what goals are compatible with those actions. As you mentioned, murder is right out but so should all forms of assault on person or property, including theft, which is what taxation is.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
