Should Majorities Decide Everything?

[Bitware]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpeTd2xII7A

[justusranvier]

How about we use ethics instead? Nobody is justified in using threats or actual violence to compel anyone to do anything.

People will still do it, of course, since the world contains many unethical people but the problem would be enormously reduced if otherwise good people would stop making excuses for predatory behavior by cloaking it in euphamisms like "social contract", "good of society", "will of the majority", "price we pay for civilization", etc. The cost of preying upon other people is greatly reduced when the predators can convince their victims not to defend themselves.

[FirstAscent]

How about we use ethics instead? Nobody is justified in using threats or actual violence to compel anyone to do anything.

People will still do it, of course, since the world contains many unethical people but the problem would be enormously reduced if otherwise good people would stop making excuses for predatory behavior by cloaking it in euphamisms like "social contract", "good of society", "will of the majority", "price we pay for civilization", etc. The cost of preying upon other people is greatly reduced when the predators can convince their victims not to defend themselves.

How naive.

Society doesn't work like that. Look at animal societies to begin with. Then realize that what one does affects everyone else. Once you move from thoughts to actions (affecting the world physically), you've crossed over the line that divides doing what you want and doing things which society will naturally guide and coerce.

Drop the whole 'coercion through violence' mantra.

[Charlie Prime]

How naive.

Society doesn't work like that. Look at animal societies to begin with. Then realize that what one does affects everyone else. Once you move from thoughts to actions (affecting the world physically), you've crossed over the line that divides doing what you want and doing things which society will naturally guide and coerce.

Drop the whole 'coercion through violence' mantra.

Drop the whole "existence is coercion" thing.  It makes you look like an idiot because anyone familiar with the question sees it for the retarded nihilist irrational nonsense that it is.

[FirstAscent]

How naive.

Society doesn't work like that. Look at animal societies to begin with. Then realize that what one does affects everyone else. Once you move from thoughts to actions (affecting the world physically), you've crossed over the line that divides doing what you want and doing things which society will naturally guide and coerce.

Drop the whole 'coercion through violence' mantra.

Drop the whole "existence is coercion" thing.  It makes you look like an idiot because anyone familiar with the question sees it for the retarded nihilist irrational nonsense that it is.

I suggest you reread my post. You're the one who needs to reflect on the nature of society.

[justusranvier]

I suggest you reread my post. You're the one who needs to reflect on the nature of society.

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Society" once endorced chattel slavery. In an example of one of the slow, infrequent steps forwards the species has made in terms of moral progress the practice is now considered nearly universally unjustifiable. What was once done openly and proudly is now recognized even by the few people who still practice it as a crime that must be hidden from public scrutiny.

So it will go eventually with statism. It's defenders will be regarded by future historians the same way we now perceive the slaver owners and traders of earlier centuries.

[FirstAscent]

I suggest you reread my post. You're the one who needs to reflect on the nature of society.

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Society" once endorced chattel slavery. In an example of one of the slow, infrequent steps forwards the species has made in terms of moral progress the practice is now considered nearly universally unjustifiable. What was once done openly and proudly is now recognized even by the few people who still practice it as a crime that must be hidden from public scrutiny.

So it will go eventually with statism. It's defenders will be regarded by future historians the same way we now perceive the slaver owners and traders of earlier centuries.

Your problem is because obviously morally repugnant things have occurred in the past and can exist in the future within the context of a society, you erroneously jump to the conclusion that one individual's actions are to be interpreted as non destructive merely by the fact that he can get away with it.

[nevafuse]

The majority decides everything now - majority of wealth, not population.  They can purchase the best/most lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, votes, etc.  And there really is no way around it.  The most you could do is attempt to lower the barriers to build wealth so wealth is more evenly spread out.  And pure capitalism is by far a greater tool to decentralize wealth than socialism.  I always find it amusing when people suggest voting to fight corruption with more legislation when legislation is the wealthy's greatest tool to increase the income gap.  If I had a billion dollars, why wouldn't I eliminate the competition by getting the government to use my company and ban all others?  Now I have a monopoly & can charge whatever I want.  Yes, you have the power to vote in/out 550 in congress, but I have the ability to pamper enough of them to get laws passed that benefit me.  Don't blame the rich, blame your government's lack of a direct democracy so laws stop getting passed that only benefit the rich.

[myrkul]

I suggest you reread my post. You're the one who needs to reflect on the nature of society.

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Society" once endorced chattel slavery. In an example of one of the slow, infrequent steps forwards the species has made in terms of moral progress the practice is now considered nearly universally unjustifiable. What was once done openly and proudly is now recognized even by the few people who still practice it as a crime that must be hidden from public scrutiny.

So it will go eventually with statism. It's defenders will be regarded by future historians the same way we now perceive the slaver owners and traders of earlier centuries.

Your problem is because obviously morally repugnant things have occurred in the past and can exist in the future within the context of a society, you erroneously jump to the conclusion that one individual's actions are to be interpreted as non destructive merely by the fact that he can get away with it.

Deeerp.... No.

One's individual actions are to be interpreted as non-destructive if they are actually non-destructive.

That is to be applied regardless of the costume one wears, or whether or not >50% of the people think it's OK.

[smoothie]

No. If they did then I would never get to use the bathroom when I wanted to.

[FirstAscent]

Your problem is because obviously morally repugnant things have occurred in the past and can exist in the future within the context of a society, you erroneously jump to the conclusion that one individual's actions are to be interpreted as non destructive merely by the fact that he can get away with it.

Deeerp.... No.

One's individual actions are to be interpreted as non-destructive if they are actually non-destructive.

That is to be applied regardless of the costume one wears, or whether or not >50% of the people think it's OK.

Arguing with you (from over a year's experience) is like talking into the wind. And your answers are like smug statements that aren't thought out very well. Once again, you can't see the picture because you're blindsided by your own ideology. I sincerely wish you were simultaneously a little bit smarter, and a little less blind. It would save us both a lot of time and words.

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

[myrkul]

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

Well, that depends on how you define "destructive"

I can smash glass bottles all day in my back yard, and my neighbors won't care. While that's certainly destructive, it's destructive of only my own property. Now, If I were to start burning tires, that would be a different matter entirely.

[FirstAscent]

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

Well, that depends on how you define "destructive"

I can smash glass bottles all day in my back yard, and my neighbors won't care. While that's certainly destructive, it's destructive of only my own property. Now, If I were to start burning tires, that would be a different matter entirely.

What about future owners of your land who aren't aware of all the broken glass that hides underneath the leaves until something happens to one of their children? Or a stray dog that wanders through? Or wolves, coyotes, rabbits, etc?

That's an excellent example, if a little offbeat. Let's try another one: deforestation. We'll assume that your neighbors are also into deforestation as well, thus they don't have any issues with it.

Here's a real example: removal of oak trees in California.

[myrkul]

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

Well, that depends on how you define "destructive"

I can smash glass bottles all day in my back yard, and my neighbors won't care. While that's certainly destructive, it's destructive of only my own property. Now, If I were to start burning tires, that would be a different matter entirely.

What about future owners of your land who aren't aware of all the broken glass that hides underneath the leaves until something happens to one of their children? Or a stray dog that wanders through? Or wolves, coyotes, rabbits, etc?

That's an excellent example, if a little offbeat. Let's try another one: deforestation. We'll assume that your neighbors are also into deforestation as well, thus they don't have any issues with it.

Here's a real example: removal of oak trees in California.

If both I, and all my neighbors were "into" deforestation, then removing the trees would not be destructive. It would improve the value of the land in mine and their eyes. Of course, that deforestation would not have only localized effects. I'd have to take into account the wide-ranging effects of my clearcutting my land, as well, and if someone is damaged by those effects, that would be my responsibility.

Going back to the broken glass in my back yard, If I fail to tell any future owners of the broken glass, and someone gets hurt, again, that's on me - my actions, and my failure to act (inform the owner of the danger) have caused damages, and I need to pay restitution. Wildlife and stray animals, however, are not my concern. They came onto my property. If they are someone's property, care should be taken not to let them wander where they might get hurt.

[FirstAscent]

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

Well, that depends on how you define "destructive"

I can smash glass bottles all day in my back yard, and my neighbors won't care. While that's certainly destructive, it's destructive of only my own property. Now, If I were to start burning tires, that would be a different matter entirely.

What about future owners of your land who aren't aware of all the broken glass that hides underneath the leaves until something happens to one of their children? Or a stray dog that wanders through? Or wolves, coyotes, rabbits, etc?

That's an excellent example, if a little offbeat. Let's try another one: deforestation. We'll assume that your neighbors are also into deforestation as well, thus they don't have any issues with it.

Here's a real example: removal of oak trees in California.

If both I, and all my neighbors were "into" deforestation, then removing the trees would not be destructive. It would improve the value of the land in mine and their eyes. Of course, that deforestation would not have only localized effects. I'd have to take into account the wide-ranging effects of my clearcutting my land, as well, and if someone is damaged by those effects, that would be my responsibility.

Going back to the broken glass in my back yard, If I fail to tell any future owners of the broken glass, and someone gets hurt, again, that's on me - my actions, and my failure to act (inform the owner of the danger) have caused damages, and I need to pay restitution. Wildlife and stray animals, however, are not my concern. They came onto my property. If they are someone's property, care should be taken not to let them wander where they might get hurt.

Lots of uneducated and presumptuous rambling there. It's not even worth addressing.

[myrkul]

Lots of uneducated and presumptuous rambling there. It's not even worth addressing.

Everyone, this is FirstAscent-speak for "You've beaten me. I give up"

Usually, he just fails to respond. I'm proud of him for taking this opportunity to fess up.

[Hunterbunter]

One's individual actions are to be interpreted as non-destructive if they are actually non-destructive.

That is to be applied regardless of the costume one wears, or whether or not >50% of the people think it's OK.

If both I, and all my neighbors were "into" deforestation, then removing the trees would not be destructive.

Just so I am clear on the subject, are opinions now to be taken as absolute? I'm pretty sure >50% also includes the set of "all".

Can you perceive all ends?

[myrkul]

One's individual actions are to be interpreted as non-destructive if they are actually non-destructive.

That is to be applied regardless of the costume one wears, or whether or not >50% of the people think it's OK.

If both I, and all my neighbors were "into" deforestation, then removing the trees would not be destructive.

Just so I am clear on the subject, are opinions now to be taken as absolute? I'm pretty sure >50% also includes the set of "all".

Can you perceive all ends?

>50% does indeed include the subset of "all". But <100% does not. From >50% to <100%, there is a majority, but not consensus.

And while I cannot perceive all ends, I must make the effort to perceive, and prepare for, as many as possible, and accept that if, in my imperfect knowledge, I cause someone harm, I must recompense them for that harm.

[Bitware]

I hope FirstAccent obtains some skillsets, gets a job, saves some money, buys some land, works that land, improves that land, & builds on that land, for 20-30 years or so. Then I want to travel there and film the interaction he has when others comes onto his land presuming authority over him, his family, his land, and his resources, restricting his land and resource use, telling him what he can, cant, and must do under penalty of death should he resist.

Rich greedy people of privelege trying to tell everyone else what to do. They make it legal by "convincing" legislators to make laws. Then funneling tons of money to states and municipalities, then giving them lots of rules, then after they are addicted to and reliant upon those funds, cut off those fund if they dont do as they are told... Stealing their way through life the easy way. The immoral way.

Does not matter what some self important controlled scientific assholes agree to under consensus concerning land they do not own, after being well-funded by the very people and groups advancing this agenda.

Thats why First Accent and friends always revert to silence or the ad-hominem attacks when contronted with the truth and the plain basic facts, for which they have absolutely no counter to.

[FirstAscent]

Lots of uneducated and presumptuous rambling there. It's not even worth addressing.

Everyone, this is FirstAscent-speak for "You've beaten me. I give up"

Usually, he just fails to respond. I'm proud of him for taking this opportunity to fess up.

No. I just don't want to argue with stupidity. There comes a point where I know my failure to address your stupidity will be answered with something like "See! I beat you! You can't address that!". Oh well.