Defending Capitalism

[BCEmporium]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

I'm not up to bully anyone... and your concept of voting ad hominem really gives me the creeps! As if people go voting for a particular person's fate...

As for truth and reality; what reality is that "anarchy"? Russia in 91? Somalia?

[1714032507]

1714032507

[1714032507]

1714032507

[1714032507]

1714032507

[1714032507]

1714032507

[NghtRppr]

If by some chance it would apply to me and 99 others because of something we do or have, then, it would suck to be us.

Well, at least you're being consistent enough to fall on your own sword. Of course, it's easy to do that when it's just a hypothetical sword. That's good enough for me, though, since now everyone else can see what your position entails.

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

ZING!

[BCEmporium]

Morality is not relative.

Morality is all relative!
Take for an instance Islam, it's not immoral to kill a non-believer (kafir) for their religion. Pedophilia, being the youngest of crimes, wasn't anything immoral up to not so long ago. Ever read Romeo & Juliet? Juliet was 13... pretty much within moral standards to get married at Shakespeare time.

You may say, and due to our kind of rational society that I couldn't find rational arguments to support rape; and there I agree with you. If a less rational society can, then those in that society will see nothing wrong in rape (say their God said that rape is cool).

[Gluskab]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

I'm not up to bully anyone... and your concept of voting ad hominem really gives me the creeps! As if people go voting for a particular person's fate...

As for truth and reality; what reality is that "anarchy"? Russia in 91? Somalia?

Just because you want to ignore the real consequences that ideas and actions have on real people, doesn't mean I should ignore them as well.

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

If you didn't notice, fewer Russians are starving now than they were under the rule of the USSR.

Go back and read that .pdf I linked earlier titled, 'The Not So Wild West,' and do some research on these examples of yours before you use them to justify the assertions you use to shift goalposts every time your 'moral' argument fails.

[Gluskab]

Morality is not relative.

Morality is all relative!
Take for an instance Islam, it's not immoral to kill a non-believer (kafir) for their religion. Pedophilia, being the youngest of crimes, wasn't anything immoral up to not so long ago. Ever read Romeo & Juliet? Juliet was 13... pretty much within moral standards to get married at Shakespeare time.

You may say, and due to our kind of rational society that I couldn't find rational arguments to support rape; and there I agree with you. If a less rational society can, then those in that society will see nothing wrong in rape (say their God said that rape is cool).

All major religions are barbaric and call for numerous barbaric and highly morally reprehensible acts of violence.  That doesn't mean that morality is relative.  Religion doesn't cause morality.  Religion only amplifies characteristics people already hold in themselves (because every holy text is full of evil and contradictory passages that can be interpreted to mean anything) and makes believers easier to control.

ALL YOU HAVE DONE THIS ENTIRE TIME IS SAY HERE ARE THINGS FROM THE STATUS QUO!

I'm not interested in the status quo, and I'm not interested in your form of debate which is 'deny idea posited without reason or analysis, then blindly assert random thing about majority rule.'

[BCEmporium]

Guess you're wrong... I don't vouch for this Democracy, however I seek into thinking on ways to move it to the next level, not some chaotic pre-caveman ages. The system status quo is outdated, yet, and upon an outdated Playstation you here are presenting me with a rotten ZX Spectrum to replace it!

If you don't see the relativeness of morality, than you'll have several issues with History books, taken without relativeness of the actions to the time they happened than they would sound like a bunch of barbaric retards... as we probably will sound to generations 100 years from now.

BTW: I said Russia in 91, right after the fall of USSR when it was a Mafia-controlled country.

[BitterTea]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

That does sound like what he's saying.

But it actually reminds me of a justification for rule enforcement (say, by competing private entities) that I like.

Let's say I enter your house and take your TV. Assuming it is known by all parties that I did do such a thing, I see only two possibilities for my response. Either I agree that theft is unacceptable, or argue that it is acceptable. If the first, then I am agreeing that I infringed upon your rights, and restitution is in order. If the second, then I am implicitly agreeing that I allow such a thing to be done to me.

This is demonstrated much more succinctly in Withur We. The main character starts a private security agency, and one of his first adjudications is done for a client that was beaten by a larger man.

“Mr. Rachmann, we don’t anticipate needing to use a jail very often. We offer a different service here, and now we are going to deliver the justice Mr. Hassan has paid for. First of all, you have physically assaulted Mr. Hassan without his permission. This action on your part is a declaration that you consider such violence permissible. As a first course, Mr. Hassan has the right to do to you what you did to him, or to hire someone to do it. Taribo will be doing the honors today, unless Mr. Hassan wishes to do it himself.”

“It is demonstrably untrue that we cannot beat you, Mr. Rachmann,” Alistair said with the flat tone of a lecturer. “Just as you beat Mr. Hassan, we can beat you. Whether or not this is a proper course of action is, ultimately, Mr. Hassan’s decision, but you certainly have no room to argue you should be treated more gently than you treated Mr. Hassan.

“In our justice system, after a neutral party determines guilt, the aggrieved party determines the punishment, the maximum permissible extent of which the perpetrator himself determines at the moment he commits his crime. You determined the type, intensity, duration and amount of the beating the moment you delivered such to Mr. Hassan. While you wait for your beating, Mr. Mpala will consult with Dr. Lushington so that an accurate punishment may be administered.”

“But that is just the beginning. We beat you with the permission of Mr. Hassan, a permission he received from you when, by your actions, you declared such things permissible. But when you beat Mr. Hassan, you acted without permission. In other words, our beating is a response and yours was an initiation. The pain to follow is a consequence of your own actions, but the pain Mr. Hassan must endure is unjust, something he should never have had to go through in the first place. You will therefore be made to pay a fine upon which interest will accrue for every moment it remains unpaid. This will be compensation for Mr. Hassan’s unnecessary suffering.”

“If you refuse to pay the fine, your property will be taken from you and its title transferred to Yusuf until the debt is cleared. If you do not have property enough to settle the debt, and if no one will lend or give you their property to help you, you will be forced to work off the debt. However, in such a case that you refuse to pay the debt on your own, we will be forced to charge you for the trouble of having to force you to work off the debt. This will only make it more expensive, and the accrued interest will be much greater as well. You may at any time, of course, reach an agreement with Mr. Hassan to settle the debt, both the money or property owed and the beating.”

[benjamindees]

To be fair, the "majority rules" argument is a moral argument.  It is based on utilitarianism along with the (flawed) assumption that the majority is stronger or more powerful than the minority, and therefore can and will do whatever it wants by force if necessary.

[Gluskab]

Guess you're wrong... I don't vouch for this Democracy, however I seek into thinking on ways to move it to the next level, not some chaotic pre-caveman ages. The system status quo is outdated, yet, and upon an outdated Playstation you here are presenting me with a rotten ZX Spectrum to replace it!

If you don't see the relativeness of morality, than you'll have several issues with History books, taken without relativeness of the actions to the time they happened than they would sound like a bunch of barbaric retards... as we probably will sound to generations 100 years from now.

Of course they were a bunch of barbaric retards, just like the earliest humans were for thinking trees were gods or that Zeus impregnated human females while taking the form of a badger.

Every moral revolution in history was preceded by utter incomprehension and followed by utter incomprehension.

Only a very few people understood the moral underpinnings of certain acts; such as the removal of the church from absolute power, the moral horrors of burning suspected witches at the stake, and the freeing of the slaves; while everyone else reacted with incomprehension that life should be any other way.

Then once those evil things are abolished, society looks back in incomprehension at the horror of what people did to their fellow man, not understanding (with the exception of a few sociopaths) how anyone could have ever committed such atrocities.

The same will be true of the state once it is abolished.  People will look back in horror that they supported mass-genocides, the looting of nations, the effective slavery of entire populations, and the incalculable loss of progress that was made, all in the name of letting a small percentage of the population have a good power trip.

If you would not kill another human being in cold blood, and if you would not kill another human being for a difference in opinion; everything else follows.  If you think murder or the threat of murder is okay in the pursuit of what you want, there is no conversation, and the morality is very clearcut.

You may be able to live that, but I'm already on the other side of the incomprehension divide.

[Gluskab]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

That does sound like what he's saying.

But it actually reminds me of a justification for rule enforcement (say, by competing private entities) that I like.

Look a little bit at the DRO model and think of them as kind of 'incentive-balancing-insurance firms.'  Most crime can be dissuaded by simple changes to technology that renders it useless in the hands of a criminal and by social or economic ostracism (ignoring the person) if they commit a crime.  Of course there's a lot more to it, but I'm not going to teach a class on DROs here.

[JA37]

Well, at least you're being consistent enough to fall on your own sword. Of course, it's easy to do that when it's just a hypothetical sword. That's good enough for me, though, since now everyone else can see what your position entails.

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

ZING!

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

I pay over 50% in taxes, because of democracy. The sword isn't that hypothetical to me. Although I must admit that it's not literal. That would hurt.
The reason for my high tax is that I make more than the average person. Poor me.

But I'm still curious about those violent special interest groups that should take over when the police goes away. Should I go with Al-Shabab Security, or Aryan enforcement Inc? I can't really decide which rules I like best.

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you? Where's the difference from a state? I don't see it.

[JA37]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

[MoonShadow]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

In the modern world, nothing.  That is unless someone intends to settle Antartica.

[Gluskab]

My philosophy has led me closest to the Agorist school which theorizes these groups would only be there to take over if they were already mostly present as insurance companies or security firms, operating peacefully while the state was still dying, and Anarchy would only come about if enough people were sufficiently educated on how effective non-violent solutions are to these problems you're posing, even the non-existent wouldn't happen in a million years problems.

In addition to that, violence is not profitable without a centralized state.  It just doesn't happen in a non-negligible fashion outside of state-esque entities.

Any any security group starting up would have a major competitive advantage if they could somehow guarantee they weren't starting an army to try to take over as a state.  If I were starting a security firm, I'd probably make sure a third party firm had access to all my warehouses and headquarters and could perform random audits to make sure I wasn't doing anything nefarious whenever they wanted, and then I'd put a huge amount of money into escrow, payable to my subscribers if any wrongdoing on my part was found.  Presto! instant, major economic incentive to toe the line and provide a good service, and major incentive for people to sign up for my DRO/Insurance Company.

[Gluskab]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

a non-failed state isn't referred to as Anarchy.

[NghtRppr]

I pay over 50% in taxes, because of democracy. The sword isn't that hypothetical to me. Although I must admit that it's not literal. That would hurt.
The reason for my high tax is that I make more than the average person. Poor me.

I'm glad that you willingly pay your taxes but what does that have to do with the rest of us that are unwilling? Also, you seem to be confusing hypothetical with metaphorical. Nobody ever implied it would be a literal sword. Your attempt at sarcasm fails.

But I'm still curious about those violent special interest groups that should take over when the police goes away. Should I go with Al-Shabab Security, or Aryan enforcement Inc? I can't really decide which rules I like best.

How about Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc? That's most likely going to be the largest firm since all those other groups you mention are just as minor as they are extreme.

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you? Where's the difference from a state? I don't see it.

The difference is that the gated community is private property. The entire United States of America is not. I think you should read up on homesteading.

[JA37]

I'm glad that you willingly pay your taxes but what does that have to do with the rest of us that are unwilling? Also, you seem to be confusing hypothetical with metaphorical. Nobody ever implied it would be a literal sword. Your attempt at sarcasm fails.

How about Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc? That's most likely going to be the largest firm since all those other groups you mention are just as minor as they are extreme.

The difference is that the gated community is private property. The entire United States of America is not. I think you should read up on homesteading.

English is my second language, so I might not find the proper english word at all times. I'm glad you're not being a jerk about it though.
I'm unwilling to do some things at my job, still have to do it, because what I get out of doing it is greater than what I put in.
Same things with taxes.

Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc won't be funded by fundies from around the globe. Criminals have a lot of money to spend. I'm not so sure a honest company would have a chance if there isn't a rule enforcer around.

I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?

[BCEmporium]

Sorry Gluskab, but you give for granted things that took millenniums to develop.
If happens that Hitler won WW2, you would be very proud if your kid come home saying he shot a Jew on the school playground. Your moral grounds would be totally different and you wouldn't see nothing wrong about it.

Also you imply continuous moral development, yet Dark Ages proves us otherwise, the Roman Empire was more developed than the times after its fall. Some of the morality you assume today was already set on Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire under Stoicism philosophy... but on 400 a.C. the Pope forbid Philosophy and it went down the toilet, so to say.
Human Rights also date back from the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great on the 5th Century b.C.... yet look at Iran today, 2500 years after and it is now less philosophically developed than under Cyrus.

I said before that generations 100 years from now will look at us as a bunch of barbaric retards, but forgot to add that I hope they do it out of development, because they made it a better place than we do and not because, for an instance, we get along with black people whereas they found it better to use them for target practicing.


a better place than we do -> Outcome drives morality, not the other way around.

[Gluskab]

Criminals only have money to spend because gambling, drugs, and prostitution are illegal in many places.

When you criminalize them, the providers must become violent because they have no legitimate dispute resolution.

Profits also skyrocket because the goods are artificially scarce.

Hence, if those things weren't illegal in most places, crime would be a net negative for most people to try their hand.

[wb3]

How about the Babylon 5 model? You will have the Religious Caste, Worker Caste, Warrior Caste, ruled by the Grey Council, 5 representing the Worker Caste, 2 for the Religious, and 2 for the Warrior.  Since the worker "little" guy pays the price for the "big guys" decisions.

Seems fair, albeit futuristic.