Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2013, 05:41 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(02-10-2013 05:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 07:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  frankksj, you remind me of me when I first joined the forum. I went out of the the to explain why I had a problem with direct taxation. Approximately* 100 pages later it just devolves into a few people calling me an idiot, ignorant, nutjob, or worse. Not trying to discourage you, just letting you know what you are likely in for. Good luck!

Thanks. I'm used to this in political forums. I was hoping in an atheist forum people would be more willing to question traditional views. Besides, the real purpose of this exercise for me is to help me explain things better. For example, I learned that using the term 'physical force' opened pandora's box because although the meaning is so obvious and simple, it led to absurd word games over what is 'physical' and not, distracting from the message. So I tried re-explaining it using the definition of liberty from the dictionary, namely respecting one's free-will. But this led to the typical liberal issue that there's no distinction between positive and negative rights and my right to use force on you and take something from you is no different than your right not to be forced to give up something against your will. I always say this means that one man's right to pleasure himself raping a woman is no less of a right than the woman's right not to be raped. The point is clear, but they'll constantly push back because, as Friedman said, the modern definition of a liberal is simply somebody who likes to spend someone else's money.

That's where Friedman was wrong through incompleteness. Conservative means the same thing in America.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
True, but it's no fun debating conservatives since the justification for everything is usually just 'god said so'. You can make a great point, and they just look at you with that contemptful 'you just wait until you're burning in hell and THEN you'll know I was right'. Liberals are a lot more fun to debate because they like to think that their ideology is pragmatic and scientific, so when you make a good point to a liberal, their face clenches up, their lips quiver, and their heads explode in a fit of rage. It's pretty fun. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:PEOPLE'S morality lies in deciding what is good or bad. I'd've thought that a fairly uncontroversial statement.

Yes, it's uncontroversial for liberals and conservatives, but as I said, libertarians think the opposite. We do NOT think that morality should be a matter of deciding what policies (like Obamacare) are good or bad.

That’s conflating individual morality with group actions. An individual will inevitably pass moral judgement. A group acts as individuals direct within the confines said individuals agreed upon. That sounds familiar somehow.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Rather, we think morality should be a set of RULES, or formulas, which make that determination automatically. People still need to agree on the RULES that define morality, but imo should NOT be left to decide each policy case-by-case. It should be decided in advance, and codified into a constitution.

"I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm applying rules I formulated based on moral judgement". I hope you see how that looks a little silly.

Individuals have internalised sets of rules for deciding things. As a group they decide on the rules for the group to operate under. We are definitely talking right past each other here (and to great lengths!). Tongue firmly in cheek, I blame your eagerness to misread me.

But let’s see. What does it mean to decide things on a case-by-case basis? Why, to apply the group’s agreed-upon rules...

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You said my chess analogy doesn't follow. I think you don't understand what I'm saying because it is apropos. So I'll try another analogy. Imagine there are 2 ways to determine whether a policy (say Obamacare) is "moral":

See above. By buying into the decision making process you’re implicitly accepting that not all decisions will go your way (“everything win-win forever” is not possible).

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  1. Like every policy, it goes to a vote, and if the majority thinks it's moral, then it's moral.

2. BEFORE even considering Obamacare or any other policy, the people agree to a certain of rules, which are testable. And the people instruct some software programmers to write a program. Going forward for each new policy under review (like Obamacare) you fill out a series of simple, objective questions, and the computer spits out the answer. No subjective human judgement call is required for each policy. Humans were ONLY used to agree on the rules up front, and after that, it's an automated process.

See above.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Liberals and conservatives believe in #1, libertarians in #2. As I've said before, the libertarian rule is simple: Are people being forced to do something against their will? If yes, the law must be struck down at the national level, and left up to the local jurisdictions to sort out. Thus, there is no judgement call at the national level. A piece of software be like this:

printf("Are people being forced to do something against their will? [y/n]");
boolean bAnswer = get_yes_no();
if( bAnswer==YES )
printf("Law is null and void at the national level");
else
printf("Law is permitted at the national level");

See, no judgement call is involved in determine if Obamacare is right, except in agreeing upon the rules up front. This is the system classic liberals in the US used. The constitution says "Here's a list of enumerated powers for the federal government. All of them are LIMITING coercion, none of them are forcing people to do anything against their will. If a law is passed at the Federal Level beyond those enumerated powers, the Supreme Court must void the law as unconstitutional. This was the 18th century equivalent of that snippet of C code I wrote above. It was designed to be an automated, objective system that provided a set of neutral, fair rules that all sides, liberals and conservatives, could agree to up front.

Yes, with the caveat that an amendment process was an explicit part of it. The ruleset needs to be open to renegotiation, or else it is not legitimate.

Though, it rather explicitly did involve forcing people to do things against their will for quite some time. Good thing it was renegotiable!

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Well, that's rather more pessimistic than I'd say is warranted. But you are clear that that's an opinion, right? Not a fact?

Of course it's an opinion, and there are occasional exceptions to the rule. But VERY few in my observation. For example, ask people first if they believe being gay is a sin and if they have gay friends or family. If the answer is 'yes it's a sin, and no I have no friends', they will 99% of the time vote against gay marriage. If the answer is 'no it's not a sin and yes I have gay friends and family', 99% of the time they vote for it. This is on just about every issue. Say undocumented immigrants. What % of undocumented immigrants are in favor of immigration reform? You dispute that it's a VERY high %? In my experience, liberals always vote in favor of liberal laws, and oppose conservative laws. And vice-versa. And this isn't just my opinion. Many political commentators have observed this.

Okay. So people have opinions and interests and act accordingly. This is a far weaker formulation than what I was responding to.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Nations are not universal. Division of powers and competencies is arbitrary. But we've been over that.

I refer to a law as 'universal' when the jurisdiction covers every place where somebody is legally allowed to live. In the European Union, a law would be universal if it covered the whole EU. In most other countries, it's universal if it's at the national level. If you're Canadian, and it's a national law, you don't have any constitutional rights to live in any country other Canada, thus the law is effectively 'universal' because everywhere that you can legally live you are bound to the law. Come on, this really isn't complicated.

Perhaps you should have defined it as such to begin with, instead of using an ambiguous word.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Man bites dog. Dog bites man.
Absent strong case marking (as in, y'know, English) word order is of strong syntactical import. Deal with it.

With man bites dog you are reversing the subject and the object. What specifically is the difference between "individual sacrifice" and "sacrifice of individuals"?

If you can’t tell the difference then I can’t help you there.

(hint: you are reversing subject and object)

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Our disagreement is over positive vs. negative rights. This is something liberals insist doesn't exist, but classic liberals and libertarians have always argued it does.

A distinction can be made, sure, but I don’t see it as meaningful.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Saying that I have the right to take something from you by force is a positive right. Saying that I have the right NOT to have stuff taken from me by force is a negative right. Liberals argue there's no difference, libertarians argue there is. Which is why we get to the "technical" definition that started this. In the case of the town vs. the couple, who is initiating physical force? Is it the 99,998 people in the town, or is it the 2 in the house? When matter contacts matter (ie a handcuff on the wrists, or a fist around the arm) which side is initiating the force? It's obvious. The 99,998 are initiating force against the 2. Therefore, libertarians almost universally reject eminent domain, because we follow a set of rules that guide our action, rather than deciding on the fly what is right and wrong. Even though 99% of the time we will benefit from eminent domain, and REALLY want that freeway, we accept that if we were that elderly couple with a bit of dementia and unable to physically handle being removed from their home, we wouldn't want to have the police come in and drag us away, so we don't do it to others, no matter how badly we want it. This also passes the Original Position, since behind the veil of ignorance, you don't know if you're the townfolk or the elderly couple.

There is no meaningful logical distinction between ‘X’ and ‘not not-X’.

“Deciding on the fly what is right and wrong” is not something which occurs in anything I’ve written. So that right there’s pretty facetious.

The point I raised was that there is no win-win. Not everybody can have what they want.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Libertarians hate the assertion that positive rights are the same as negative rights, that it's appropriate for the 99,998 to throw the couple out of their home because they'd be 'sacrificing' themselves if they weren't able to do so, because this assertion of positive rights has historically been used to justify EVERYTHING. There's absolutely NOTHING that cannot be justified if you believe in positive rights. I want to rape your daughter? No problem! It's not fair for to sacrifice myself for your daughter's sake, my right to rape her is no different than her right not to be raped.

So, appeal to consequences? Not particularly compelling...

Of course anything can be justified that way. I’m fairly certain you’re already aware of this, but that is what rapists actually think.

It’s the absurdly disingenuous “the rights are no different” where it falls down, mind. I think you’ll find very few takers on your incredibly caricatured straw man.

You seem to have missed the part where I explained myself (repeatedly). Rights are not meaningful unless defined and upheld by agreement. If you find a society which recognizes “right to rape” as equal to “right not to be raped”, do tell.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:I never said "it's ok to sacrifice some individuals for the sake of the group"
WTF?! Go back to the eminent domain example. The 'group' is the town of 100,000 people, the 'individuals' being sacrificed are the 2 elderly people. You're defending the towns right to remove them from their home, right?

No. I was exploring the situation. But ascribing me positions and then arguing against them is par for your course...

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What are you saying? That the 2 elderly people aren't being sacrificed? It's not a sacrifice for them to give up their home and, perhaps even die if they lack the mental agility to adjust to new surroundings? Are are you saying their sacrifice is not for the sake of the group???

No, no, and no. Didn’t I say that? Well, I’ve said it now.

Is everyone else not making a sacrifice in bowing to their situation?

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It seems like I cannot pin you down on this.

On what?

In literally any decision-making process where there is not absolute consensus then by agreeing to abide by the results of that process someone is making a sacrifice. That is the sense in which I am speaking.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:1. There should be individual sacrifice for the sake of society
2. Individuals should be forced to make sacrifices for the sake of society
You see the 2 as being different. How are they different?

See above.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I'll give you that I fucked up and missed the pronoun shift in the golden vs. platinum rule, but I still don't understand the fundamental difference here. It seems a silly debate over grammar, because the principle is the same imo.

I’d still maintain that it’s not the same thing. Whatever.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:[quote]Q: ...provided there's another way to address pollution that spreads across jurisdictions, having local jurisdiction is a better way to let everyone exercise their free will?

Provided there's another way to address any issues that extend beyond the immediate jurisdiction in question? Yes, of course.

(bonus question: what about the other issues extending beyond immediate jurisdiction?)

The problem is how you define 'issues' that cross jurisdictions.

I agree.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I define it in a literal, physical, testable way: is property from one jurisdiction damaged by the other. Yes, that's narrow. But, remember, libertarians like to have rules we follow, rather than leave it up to subjective calls.

Yes. Sure. The rules are, of course, equally subjective.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think you make it subjective and will allow whatever you feel is an 'issue' to justify universal laws. But by doing so, there are no rules, and anything is justifiable.

You can certainly think what you like, but no, I don’t think that.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What if everybody in one state believed prostitution was okay? Sure, the other states could argue they need a national ban because it's an 'issue' that enters their jurisdiction (ie temptation).

Yes. Someone could argue that.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But you understand, the libertarian position is to agree to the rules of the game in advance, and come up with rules that all parties can live with. Limiting the cross jurisdictional issues to those that are physical (ie polution) is a simple, testable rule. You've left it open to no rule, so you can decide on a case-by-case basis what is a cross jurisdictional issue that requires univeral enforcement.

You read an awful lot into what I didn’t write. Repeatedly and extensively. It’s kind of annoying.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Do you understand now my point that libertarians believe in establishing rules to the game up front, which all parties must live with, as opposed to make judgement calls on the fly?

Yes. Agreeing to a set of rules. I could have sworn I mentioned something like that...

Given that you kept mentioning bizarre tangential specific cases, I assumed (wrongly) that the ‘rules’ you spoke of would be far more prescriptive than principles. My bad.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Does it now make sense that the US Founders said the federal government was NOT a democracy, but rather a constituationally limited republic designed to protect the people FROM democracy?

And from blacks and indians!

... But no, I know what a constitution is, actually. And I agree that unrestricted direct democracy would be utterly unworkable.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Democracy is a subjective, case-by-case by decision. A constituationally limited republic is a set of rules that are agreed to up front.

I guess you could define the terms like that.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:The thought behind that requirement is that by driving a car (on public roads Rolleyes ) you implicitly endanger others, and it is designed to prevent you from being able to harm others beyond your ability to compensate. Do you agree with that policy?

Again, I think it's up to the people who own the roads to decide what rules apply to their use.

I agree. Wherever did you think I didn’t?

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:[My health care system going outside the US] totally works for you. At the moment. Until and unless something goes wrong.
Totally wrong. I'm now 40. The money I've saved and invested by not buying US health care is now over $500,000. First, that's more than most insurance companies will pay out anyway, and enough to cover any condition, especially since it's my money and I can go outside the US, where $500k is enough to cover anything. I'd say that _IF_ something goes wrong, say I get some new, rare disease, I am in a MUCH better condition than Americans on the US health care system. Those poor chaps are totally at the mercy of their insurance company, who can and do deny them coverage for just about any reason, including that treatment of the disease is experimental or not approved in the US. And what's going to happen as they get older, and hit 65? They're insurance will be cancelled, or the premiums may be so high they can't afford it anymore. By self-insuring, I'm in a MUCH better position. When I hit 65, I'd have so much amassed already I'd be covered for the rest of my life and not need insurance. I have total freedom. If I'm 80 years old and want to live in a retirement home in Rio with hookers who give you lap dances every day, I'm free to do it. Those Americans who are dependent on the health insurance companies will have no coverage, and they'll be dependent on US Medicaid, which doesn't cover shit.

And right back to irrelevant specifics.

I’m sure you’ll agree that the principle of insurance is sound?

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I realize you're not advocating Obamacare.

Thank you.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But my point is that the liberals in the US have dug in and said they will not give up Obamacare, even if means shutting down the government. This is what happens when you force a law at the national level.

And my point was that “better than nothing” was sufficient justification for many people, because you asked me what justification other people might have.

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Liberals generally prefer a single-payer system, like Canada.

Healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction.

(not that state/province borders aren’t tragically arbitrary in the first place, but we’ve been over that)

(01-10-2013 07:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If Obama had focused on health care reform at the STATE level, he might have gotten the more liberal states to switch to single-payer. And if it was successful, it would have put pressure on the other states to switch. But instead he decided to do it as a national law which meant the current compromise, Obamacare, is a disaster for BOTH sides.

Sure, and?

(02-10-2013 05:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  For example, I learned that using the term 'physical force' opened pandora's box because although the meaning is so obvious and simple, it led to absurd word games over what is 'physical' and not, distracting from the message.

Sloppy, inadequate terminology doesn’t help anyone.

I never got an answer: does trespassing constitute physical force?

(02-10-2013 05:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So I tried re-explaining it using the definition of liberty from the dictionary, namely respecting one's free-will. But this led to the typical liberal issue that there's no distinction between positive and negative rights and my right to use force on you and take something from you is no different than your right not to be forced to give up something against your will.

If someone outside your head says that, let me know.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr,

Over and over and over again you keep linking to the wikipedia page Social Contract

Yet you STILL obviously haven't read it, because it supports MY position—and completely blows yours to bits! John Locke is often credited with initiating the modern concept of Social Contract, in Second Treatise of Government. And he is the founder of the classic liberal (ie libertarian) movement. Everything I've written originates with Locke, including the distinction between negative and positive rights. The actual book “The Social Contract” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and “Rousseau argues that, like his native Geneva, small city-states are the form of nation in which freedom can best flourish.” link

Which is EXACTLY what I keep saying. See that link you keep posting. Right there at the top it says: “Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate”. See the key word there: CONSENT. For a contract to be valid it must be entered into voluntarily.

The key issue we're debating is if a person should be given the choice of picking between many different political systems and finding the one he wants to live under, where he voluntarily consents to obey the rules. You keep pushing back and saying there's no difference between this and having 'universal' rules that cover every place where you're legally allowed to live. But if there's a law at the national level, then I'm subjected to it just by being born, and I have no way to escape. Where is the CONSENT!!! CONSENT is key to the social contract or any contract. Nobody CONSENTED to being born. However, when you move out from your parent's home, you DO consent to live in a certain place. As Rousseau said, for freedom to flourish, the jurisdiction should be limited to a local area. Got it?! Remember, every time you link to “Social Contract”, you're just proving my point.

Quote:"I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm applying rules I formulated based on moral judgement". I hope you see how that looks a little silly.

It's not silly at all. First, as I mentioned before, the moral “rule” libertarians follow IS justified by philosophies like the Golden Rule and the Original Position. It's not just arbitrarily made up. It doesn't benefit one side over another. All men are equal.

Quote:What does it mean to decide things on a case-by-case basis? Why, to apply the group’s agreed-upon rules...

This is my whole fucking point! Liberals don't have any rules! I've challenged you repeatedly to tell me what these “rules” are, but you keep running from them. So, I'll ask you again:

What “rule” did liberals use in the 1920's to decide eugenics was justified?

What “rule” did liberals use which, until recently, led them to believe gay marriage should be banned, and what changed so that over the past 10 years liberals suddenly decided it's now acceptable?

You keep pushing back when I say liberals don't follow any rules, and you insist they do. But every time I challenge you to state those rules, you run from that. So what are the fucking rules? Otherwise, just admit that there are none.

Quote:By buying into the decision making process you’re implicitly accepting that not all decisions will go your way (“everything win-win forever” is not possible).

That's the whole point of having a voluntary, free-market system. EVERY transaction that individuals enter into is done because every party considers it a 'win'. I know it sounds silly, but there really are no winners and losers in a free market system, where corporations have no control over government and government is unable to pick winners and losers. Sure, a company like Apple may accumulate a lot of wealth. But this is only because are voluntarily giving Apple $500 for their iPhone because they want the iPhone more than they want their $500 and feel that their life is better by having an iPhone instead of their $500. In a free-market, purely voluntary system, it is win-win. Who are the losers?

Quote:Though, [the constitution] rather explicitly did involve forcing people to do things against their will for quite some time. Good thing it was renegotiable!

That's a separate issue. The authors were racist and ignorant and believed that only white men were “people”, and everyone else was livestock. Yes, it's attrocious what happened. But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Founders' system where all people are able to exercise free will is a good system. It worked great for those (white) men who were allowed to participate in it. So the “fix” to the problem is to expand the system, extend the definition of 'people' to include all humans, so that everybody can exercise free will. The idea that because of the evil of slavery we should just give up on the whole idea of free will is crazy, imo.

Quote:[RE: positive vs. Negative rights] A distinction can be made, sure, but I don’t see it as meaningful. There is no meaningful logical distinction between ‘X’ and ‘not not-X’.

This dismissal of the difference between positive vs. negative rights is the cause of all sorts of evil, such as the rapist who says that his right to indulge his desires is no less important than the woman's right not to be raped.

Quote:
Quote:It seems like I cannot pin you down on this.
On what?

Uh, on the sentence right above you were responding to. I asked you this before:

Q: Is it ok to sacrifice some individuals for the sake of other individuals (ie for the greater good of a group)?

You said 'no'. Right? But then when I described the eminent domain example of a town of 100,000 kicking a couple out of their home to build a freeway, you defended it. So, I asked: “That the 2 elderly people aren't being sacrificed? It's not a sacrifice for them to give up their home and, perhaps even die if they lack the mental agility to adjust to new surroundings? Are are you saying their sacrifice is not for the sake of the group? “

And you replied “no” to all 3 questions. Can't you see you're running in circles and contradicting yourself? When I asked: “It's not a sacrifice for them to give up their home and, perhaps even die?” You said 'no'!? Seriously, if your home and life are taken from you, that's not sacrifice!? Do you even have a dictionary? Sacrifice: “to surrender or give up [ie your home]... for the sake of something else [ie a freeway].” Then when I ask if the elderly couple's sacrifice is for the sake of the group (the town) you say 'no'?! So WTF is it for?

Quote:
Quote:You've left it open to no rule, so you can decide on a case-by-case basis what is a cross jurisdictional issue that requires univeral enforcement.

You read an awful lot into what I didn’t write. Repeatedly and extensively. It’s kind of annoying.

I've challenged you repeatedly to state what 'rule' liberals follow. You've been unable to come up with any rule at all. So I point out that there is no rule. And you say it's annoying. Yeah, it's annoying because you've backed yourself into a corner insisting you follow a set of rules, and then when I challenge you to present them, you can't, because there are no rules. Sorry if you find that annoying.

Quote:I never got an answer: does trespassing constitute physical force?

Of course it does. The moment my foot makes contact with you, your face, your clothes, your land, your car, etc., that is physical force. Why is this concept so complicated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yet you STILL obviously haven't read it, because it supports MY position—and completely blows yours to bits! John Locke is often credited with initiating the modern concept of Social Contract, in Second Treatise of Government. And he is the founder of the classic liberal (ie libertarian) movement. Everything I've written originates with Locke, including the distinction between negative and positive rights. The actual book “The Social Contract” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and “Rousseau argues that, like his native Geneva, small city-states are the form of nation in which freedom can best flourish.”

Except for the part where your have jumped from one complete mischaracterisation of me to another, sure.

Keep tilting those giants, Don.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Which is EXACTLY what I keep saying. See that link you keep posting. Right there at the top it says: “Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate”. See the key word there: CONSENT. For a contract to be valid it must be entered into voluntarily.

Point me to one single instance where I argued against that. It's okay; I'll wait.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The key issue we're debating is if a person should be given the choice of picking between many different political systems and finding the one he wants to live under, where he voluntarily consents to obey the rules. You keep pushing back and saying there's no difference between this and having 'universal' rules that cover every place where you're legally allowed to live. But if there's a law at the national level, then I'm subjected to it just by being born, and I have no way to escape. Where is the CONSENT!!! CONSENT is key to the social contract or any contract. Nobody CONSENTED to being born. However, when you move out from your parent's home, you DO consent to live in a certain place. As Rousseau said, for freedom to flourish, the jurisdiction should be limited to a local area. Got it?! Remember, every time you link to “Social Contract”, you're just proving my point.

No, I do not keep saying that. We are not debating that, unless my repeatedly attempting to dispel your misconceptions is a debate. That happened in your mind. Not in my actual posts.

Is it obstinacy, at this point, which prevents you from actually reading what I've written?

(I also keep mentioning how the borders of modern geopolitical units are tremendously arbitrary, as a side-note, but you don't seem to acknowledge that)

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:"I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm applying rules I formulated based on moral judgement". I hope you see how that looks a little silly.

It's not silly at all.

Well, y'know, except for the part where it's the same thing.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  First, as I mentioned before, the moral “rule” libertarians follow IS justified by philosophies like the Golden Rule and the Original Position. It's not just arbitrarily made up. It doesn't benefit one side over another. All men are equal.

And as I previously mentioned, I mistook your use of 'rules' to mean something more prescriptive than you intended. "Principles" would seem a much clearer word for what you mean.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:What does it mean to decide things on a case-by-case basis? Why, to apply the group’s agreed-upon rules...

This is my whole fucking point! Liberals don't have any rules! I've challenged you repeatedly to tell me what these “rules” are, but you keep running from them. So, I'll ask you again:

What “rule” did liberals use in the 1920's to decide eugenics was justified?

You don't seem to understand.

That wasn't me.

I should justify things you disagree with on behalf of other people... why?

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What “rule” did liberals use which, until recently, led them to believe gay marriage should be banned, and what changed so that over the past 10 years liberals suddenly decided it's now acceptable?

You don't seem to understand.

That wasn't me.

I should justify things you disagree with on behalf of other people... why?

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You keep pushing back when I say liberals don't follow any rules, and you insist they do. But every time I challenge you to state those rules, you run from that. So what are the fucking rules? Otherwise, just admit that there are none.

Their morals are the rules used to come to decisions.

How you don't see that, I really can't fathom.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:By buying into the decision making process you’re implicitly accepting that not all decisions will go your way (“everything win-win forever” is not possible).

That's the whole point of having a voluntary, free-market system. EVERY transaction that individuals enter into is done because every party considers it a 'win'. I know it sounds silly, but there really are no winners and losers in a free market system, where corporations have no control over government and government is unable to pick winners and losers. Sure, a company like Apple may accumulate a lot of wealth. But this is only because are voluntarily giving Apple $500 for their iPhone because they want the iPhone more than they want their $500 and feel that their life is better by having an iPhone instead of their $500. In a free-market, purely voluntary system, it is win-win. Who are the losers?

So long as scarcity exists, not everybody can always have everything they want. Thus, not win-win.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Though, [the constitution] rather explicitly did involve forcing people to do things against their will for quite some time. Good thing it was renegotiable!

That's a separate issue. The authors were racist and ignorant and believed that only white men were “people”, and everyone else was livestock. Yes, it's attrocious what happened. But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Founders' system where all people are able to exercise free will is a good system. It worked great for those (white) men who were allowed to participate in it. So the “fix” to the problem is to expand the system, extend the definition of 'people' to include all humans, so that everybody can exercise free will. The idea that because of the evil of slavery we should just give up on the whole idea of free will is crazy, imo.

Sure. Point being?

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This dismissal of the difference between positive vs. negative rights is the cause of all sorts of evil, such as the rapist who says that his right to indulge his desires is no less important than the woman's right not to be raped.

Right. Of course, that's an absurd and disingenuous way of putting things.

I have stated that rights are a social construct. Therefore unless the agreement is that "all positive and negative rights are equal" then all positive and negative rights are not equal.

Complicated, I know.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:On what?

Uh, on the sentence right above you were responding to. I asked you this before:

Q: Is it ok to sacrifice some individuals for the sake of other individuals (ie for the greater good of a group)?

You said 'no'. Right? But then when I described the eminent domain example of a town of 100,000 kicking a couple out of their home to build a freeway, you defended it.

Not outside your mind, I didn't.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, I asked: “That the 2 elderly people aren't being sacrificed? It's not a sacrifice for them to give up their home and, perhaps even die if they lack the mental agility to adjust to new surroundings? Are are you saying their sacrifice is not for the sake of the group? “

And you replied “no” to all 3 questions.

You prefaced that with "is that what you're saying?", which was what I was saying 'no' to - that I did not agree with any of your three ad absurdum attitudes.

In retrospect that was rather poorly phrased. I'm sorry for that.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can't you see you're running in circles and contradicting yourself? When I asked: “It's not a sacrifice for them to give up their home and, perhaps even die?” You said 'no'!? Seriously, if your home and life are taken from you, that's not sacrifice!?

I just explained how I didn't mean that. But, y'know, asymmetric communication and all; I can hardly stop you once you've built up such a head of steam.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Do you even have a dictionary? Sacrifice: “to surrender or give up [ie your home]... for the sake of something else [ie a freeway].” Then when I ask if the elderly couple's sacrifice is for the sake of the group (the town) you say 'no'?! So WTF is it for?

wut.

In any society people are giving up their ability to act against the rules of that society. That is a sacrifice.

In that example, then depending on the structure of the society these people live in then either one group or the other is not getting what they want (see my earlier point: nobody always gets what they want). In which case obeying the rules they agreed to means that they don't get what they want.

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:You read an awful lot into what I didn’t write. Repeatedly and extensively. It’s kind of annoying.

I've challenged you repeatedly to state what 'rule' liberals follow. You've been unable to come up with any rule at all. So I point out that there is no rule. And you say it's annoying. Yeah, it's annoying because you've backed yourself into a corner insisting you follow a set of rules, and then when I challenge you to present them, you can't, because there are no rules. Sorry if you find that annoying.

Perhaps I just don't see why I need to fucking justify other people's actions to you.

(notwithstanding the part where I did explain the methods people use to come to decisions)

(03-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:I never got an answer: does trespassing constitute physical force?

Of course it does. The moment my foot makes contact with you, your face, your clothes, your land, your car, etc., that is physical force. Why is this concept so complicated?

Okay. Your very narrow original definition did not cover such situations.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-10-2013, 07:47 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:
Quote:See the key word there: CONSENT. For a contract to be valid it must be entered into voluntarily.
Point me to one single instance where I argued against that. It's okay; I'll wait.
I won't keep you waiting long at all. Let's track the waffling.
WAFFLE: At this point you indicate you believe we should be able to choose which jurisdiction (ie political system or set of laws) we live under so that we are consenting to this.
I argued from the beginning that if people are given a choice of political systems (or laws) to live under, and choose the one that best reflects their values, then they have made a voluntary choice to consent to the laws, which is the key trigger in the “social contract”. Therefore, for there to be consent, laws must be at the state/province/local level, not the national level, in a Federalist system like Canada, the US, Switzerland, etc., because then everyone is allowed to pick a jurisdiction to live under. If a law is passed at the national level, and the jurisdiction covers every single place that a person can live, so that just be being born that person is subject to those laws for life and can do nothing to avoid them, then the user has not consented, since no fetus “consented” to be born in a certain country.

You replied:

Quote:The lines on a political map don't change their nature just because they're thicker or thinner.

WAFFLE: Here, though, you're saying it makes no difference if the laws are passed at the national level (which nobody consents to be under), vs. the state/province/local level (which we do consent to be under).

I point this out:
Quote:Of course they do. You are guaranteed the right to cross any thin line (state line) you want. If you hate the rules within your thin/state line, you are completely free to cross any and all state lines and live in any state you want. That is NOT true of the 'thick/national' lines. If a national law is passed and you find it too oppressive, there is no treaty with Canada or Mexico granting you the right to cross those thick lines and live in their country. The thick line is a significant barrier with lots of obstacles to pass it (border patrols, customs, etc.). The thin line is a line in the dirt that you can walk back and forth uninhindered...

you're using the social contract to justify denying free will [by passing laws] at the national level

Then you bolded that phrase above and replied:

Quote:Please let me know where I did that

So, I still have no idea what you believe because I can't get a straight answer out of you. So I will ask you point-blank basic yes/no questions:

Q1: If a law is passed so that, based on where you were born, every single place where you are legally allowed to live you are bound to the law, and you cannot move and escape it, then you have not CONSENTED to subject yourself to that law, since you were subjected to it merely by being born. Do you agree?

Q2: If, however, laws are passed at the local level, and when you become an adult and move on your own, you are free to pick the jurisdiction you want to live under, and there's a cornucopia of choices (communist, capitalist, nanny state, etc.), that you are choosing which system has laws you can subject yourself to, then you ARE consenting to subject yourself to that law. Do you agree?

Q3: Therefore, if a law is passed which will deny someone's free will, forcing people to do things against their will, do you agree that it is better to do at the local level so that you are making a voluntary decision to consent to the law by staying in the local area?

Q4: If the law is passed at the national level, and you are bound to that law in every place you can legally live, thus unable to escape it, do you agree that you have not consented to the law?

Q5: Do you acknowledge that consent is a key factor to any contract, including the social contract?

Quote:
Quote:I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm applying rules I formulated based on moral judgement
Well, y'know, except for the part where it's the same thing.

It's NOT the same thing. Say we (society) agree to a set of rules in advance, knowing these rules will be consistently and predictably applied. I will repeat my earlier analogy. This is like a 45mph speed limit. True, we (society) agree to the an arbitrary rule, to the formula which will be used to determine if we get a ticket (if we drive <=45 we don't, if we drive >45, we do). That is very different than telling the police to make a moral judgment if someone is driving too fast, so that it's entirely subjective and unpredictable if you're going to get pulled over.

Q6: I stated the 'rule' that libertarians use when deciding if laws are justified at the national level. I even provided it in C-language pseudo-code, and can restate it as a formula or any other way you want. Do you get it, and understand this simple rule?

After repeatedly pushing you to explain if liberals have a similar rule, you just said:

Quote:Their morals are the rules used to come to decisions.

Q7: Aren't morals an individual, subjective thing, so that saying you use your morals to make the rules on a case-by-case basis is the same thing as saying you don't have any rules?

If there really is a “RULE” here, please put it in a formula, or code snippet, or simple explanation. Saying 'my morals are the rules' is, imo, you conceding to what I've been saying all along. Liberals pass laws based on what they think is moral at any given point in time, and often they get it wrong. Libertarians use axioms and thought experiments to come up with testable, pragmatic rules that determine morality, like the Original Position.

Quote:In any society people are giving up their ability to act against the rules of that society. That is a sacrifice.


Q8: Correct, but if you are allowed to pick the society (the set of laws or rules) you want to live under, you are making a voluntary decision, and this is different than being born into a set of rules that you can never escape, which is involuntary. Do you agree?


Quote:(notwithstanding the part where I did explain the methods people use to come to decisions)

You link to the Wikipedia page on morality. Notice on morality and politics, there is only quote, from a Libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

Quote:... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

That is exactly what Bastiat said in "The Law", which is one of the most basic guides that all libertarians use today. What Chomsky is saying is that just because some individual has some title or rank (ie in the government) doesn't mean he has superhuman rights. It is only moral for them to do what we as individuals also can do. Nothing more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 06:25 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Point me to one single instance where I argued against that. It's okay; I'll wait.
I won't keep you waiting long at all. Let's track the waffling.
WAFFLE: At this point you indicate you believe we should be able to choose which jurisdiction (ie political system or set of laws) we live under so that we are consenting to this.
I argued from the beginning that if people are given a choice of political systems (or laws) to live under, and choose the one that best reflects their values, then they have made a voluntary choice to consent to the laws, which is the key trigger in the “social contract”. Therefore, for there to be consent, laws must be at the state/province/local level, not the national level, in a Federalist system like Canada, the US, Switzerland, etc., because then everyone is allowed to pick a jurisdiction to live under. If a law is passed at the national level, and the jurisdiction covers every single place that a person can live, so that just be being born that person is subject to those laws for life and can do nothing to avoid them, then the user has not consented, since no fetus “consented” to be born in a certain country.

You replied:

Quote:The lines on a political map don't change their nature just because they're thicker or thinner.

WAFFLE: Here, though, you're saying it makes no difference if the laws are passed at the national level (which nobody consents to be under), vs. the state/province/local level (which we do consent to be under).

I point this out:
Quote:Of course they do. You are guaranteed the right to cross any thin line (state line) you want. If you hate the rules within your thin/state line, you are completely free to cross any and all state lines and live in any state you want. That is NOT true of the 'thick/national' lines. If a national law is passed and you find it too oppressive, there is no treaty with Canada or Mexico granting you the right to cross those thick lines and live in their country. The thick line is a significant barrier with lots of obstacles to pass it (border patrols, customs, etc.). The thin line is a line in the dirt that you can walk back and forth uninhindered...

you're using the social contract to justify denying free will [by passing laws] at the national level

Then you bolded that phrase above and replied:

Quote:Please let me know where I did that

So, I still have no idea what you believe because I can't get a straight answer out of you. So I will ask you point-blank basic yes/no questions:

Q1: If a law is passed so that, based on where you were born, every single place where you are legally allowed to live you are bound to the law, and you cannot move and escape it, then you have not CONSENTED to subject yourself to that law, since you were subjected to it merely by being born. Do you agree?

Q2: If, however, laws are passed at the local level, and when you become an adult and move on your own, you are free to pick the jurisdiction you want to live under, and there's a cornucopia of choices (communist, capitalist, nanny state, etc.), that you are choosing which system has laws you can subject yourself to, then you ARE consenting to subject yourself to that law. Do you agree?

Q3: Therefore, if a law is passed which will deny someone's free will, forcing people to do things against their will, do you agree that it is better to do at the local level so that you are making a voluntary decision to consent to the law by staying in the local area?

Q4: If the law is passed at the national level, and you are bound to that law in every place you can legally live, thus unable to escape it, do you agree that you have not consented to the law?

Q5: Do you acknowledge that consent is a key factor to any contract, including the social contract?

Quote:Well, y'know, except for the part where it's the same thing.

It's NOT the same thing. Say we (society) agree to a set of rules in advance, knowing these rules will be consistently and predictably applied. I will repeat my earlier analogy. This is like a 45mph speed limit. True, we (society) agree to the an arbitrary rule, to the formula which will be used to determine if we get a ticket (if we drive <=45 we don't, if we drive >45, we do). That is very different than telling the police to make a moral judgment if someone is driving too fast, so that it's entirely subjective and unpredictable if you're going to get pulled over.

Q6: I stated the 'rule' that libertarians use when deciding if laws are justified at the national level. I even provided it in C-language pseudo-code, and can restate it as a formula or any other way you want. Do you get it, and understand this simple rule?

After repeatedly pushing you to explain if liberals have a similar rule, you just said:

Quote:Their morals are the rules used to come to decisions.

Q7: Aren't morals an individual, subjective thing, so that saying you use your morals to make the rules on a case-by-case basis is the same thing as saying you don't have any rules?

If there really is a “RULE” here, please put it in a formula, or code snippet, or simple explanation. Saying 'my morals are the rules' is, imo, you conceding to what I've been saying all along. Liberals pass laws based on what they think is moral at any given point in time, and often they get it wrong. Libertarians use axioms and thought experiments to come up with testable, pragmatic rules that determine morality, like the Original Position.

Quote:In any society people are giving up their ability to act against the rules of that society. That is a sacrifice.


Q8: Correct, but if you are allowed to pick the society (the set of laws or rules) you want to live under, you are making a voluntary decision, and this is different than being born into a set of rules that you can never escape, which is involuntary. Do you agree?


Quote:(notwithstanding the part where I did explain the methods people use to come to decisions)

You link to the Wikipedia page on morality. Notice on morality and politics, there is only quote, from a Libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

Quote:... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

That is exactly what Bastiat said in "The Law", which is one of the most basic guides that all libertarians use today. What Chomsky is saying is that just because some individual has some title or rank (ie in the government) doesn't mean he has superhuman rights. It is only moral for them to do what we as individuals also can do. Nothing more.

You are now experiencing the Chas/Cljr shuffle. They will argue against what you say yet never make any claim themselves thus allowing them to use the "I never implied/said.....

Ask them yes or no questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Point me to one single instance where I argued against that. It's okay; I'll wait.
I won't keep you waiting long at all. Let's track the waffling.
WAFFLE: At this point you indicate you believe we should be able to choose which jurisdiction (ie political system or set of laws) we live under so that we are consenting to this.
I argued from the beginning that if people are given a choice of political systems (or laws) to live under, and choose the one that best reflects their values, then they have made a voluntary choice to consent to the laws, which is the key trigger in the “social contract”. Therefore, for there to be consent, laws must be at the state/province/local level, not the national level, in a Federalist system like Canada, the US, Switzerland, etc., because then everyone is allowed to pick a jurisdiction to live under. If a law is passed at the national level, and the jurisdiction covers every single place that a person can live, so that just be being born that person is subject to those laws for life and can do nothing to avoid them, then the user has not consented, since no fetus “consented” to be born in a certain country.

You replied:

Quote:The lines on a political map don't change their nature just because they're thicker or thinner.

WAFFLE: Here, though, you're saying it makes no difference if the laws are passed at the national level (which nobody consents to be under), vs. the state/province/local level (which we do consent to be under).

No, because that's an idiotic and disingenuous misinterpretation.

You convincing yourself that you know what I must have meant does not constitute actual comprehension of what I meant.

If you're not capable of being honest and listening to me then I'm done here.

And then pat yourself on the back. You won! You sure showed that straw man! Boy, did that straw man ever hold some wacky ideas, right? Good thing you were here to take him apart.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I point this out:
Quote:Of course they do. You are guaranteed the right to cross any thin line (state line) you want. If you hate the rules within your thin/state line, you are completely free to cross any and all state lines and live in any state you want. That is NOT true of the 'thick/national' lines. If a national law is passed and you find it too oppressive, there is no treaty with Canada or Mexico granting you the right to cross those thick lines and live in their country. The thick line is a significant barrier with lots of obstacles to pass it (border patrols, customs, etc.). The thin line is a line in the dirt that you can walk back and forth uninhindered...

you're using the social contract to justify denying free will [by passing laws] at the national level

Then you bolded that phrase above and replied:

Quote:Please let me know where I did that

My point was that it's worth considering why the lines are where they are. That consistently eludes you.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, I still have no idea what you believe because I can't get a straight answer out of you.

Making shit up and ascribing it to me isn't really a recipe for consistency, no.

I have repeatedly stated what I believe, and you have proven unable to interpret it honestly.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So I will ask you point-blank basic yes/no questions:

And misinterpret the answers, no doubt. But I am indulgent, so I will answer them.

Again.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q1: If a law is passed so that, based on where you were born, every single place where you are legally allowed to live you are bound to the law, and you cannot move and escape it, then you have not CONSENTED to subject yourself to that law, since you were subjected to it merely by being born. Do you agree?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

Protip: the division of powers and competencies of different levels of government is tremendously variable.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q2: If, however, laws are passed at the local level, and when you become an adult and move on your own, you are free to pick the jurisdiction you want to live under, and there's a cornucopia of choices (communist, capitalist, nanny state, etc.), that you are choosing which system has laws you can subject yourself to, then you ARE consenting to subject yourself to that law. Do you agree?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

Protip: the division of powers and competencies of different levels of government is tremendously variable.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q3: Therefore, if a law is passed which will deny someone's free will, forcing people to do things against their will, do you agree that it is better to do at the local level so that you are making a voluntary decision to consent to the law by staying in the local area?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

Protip: the division of powers and competencies of different levels of government is tremendously variable.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q4: If the law is passed at the national level, and you are bound to that law in every place you can legally live, thus unable to escape it, do you agree that you have not consented to the law?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

Protip: the division of powers and competencies of different levels of government is tremendously variable.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q5: Do you acknowledge that consent is a key factor to any contract, including the social contract?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Well, y'know, except for the part where it's the same thing.

It's NOT the same thing. Say we (society) agree to a set of rules in advance, knowing these rules will be consistently and predictably applied. I will repeat my earlier analogy. This is like a 45mph speed limit. True, we (society) agree to the an arbitrary rule, to the formula which will be used to determine if we get a ticket (if we drive <=45 we don't, if we drive >45, we do). That is very different than telling the police to make a moral judgment if someone is driving too fast, so that it's entirely subjective and unpredictable if you're going to get pulled over.

You are trying very hard to make my statements conform to the straw man who lives in your head.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q6: I stated the 'rule' that libertarians use when deciding if laws are justified at the national level. I even provided it in C-language pseudo-code, and can restate it as a formula or any other way you want. Do you get it, and understand this simple rule?

After repeatedly pushing you to explain if liberals have a similar rule, you just said:

Quote:Their morals are the rules used to come to decisions.

I reiterate that if you literally can't grasp that, I can't help you.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q7: Aren't morals an individual, subjective thing, so that saying you use your morals to make the rules on a case-by-case basis is the same thing as saying you don't have any rules?

That's absurdly fallacious.

Let's examine my point:
Morality is a system of rules.
Morality is used to make decisions.
THEREFORE rules are used to make decisions.

Let's examine your point:
Morality is a system of rules.
ADDED: Morals are subjective. (note: I literally already said this, too)
Morality is used to make decisions.
THEREFORE there are no rules.

Nope. Might be something, but it ain't logic.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If there really is a “RULE” here, please put it in a formula, or code snippet, or simple explanation. Saying 'my morals are the rules' is, imo, you conceding to what I've been saying all along. Liberals pass laws based on what they think is moral at any given point in time, and often they get it wrong. Libertarians use axioms and thought experiments to come up with testable, pragmatic rules that determine morality, like the Original Position.

So, what you're saying is, other peoples' opinions are wrong. That's not a particularly useful view.

Let us examine your point:
Liberals formulate rules according to their morality.
Libertarians formulate rules according to their morality.
Somehow this is a different process.

Nope. Might be something, but it ain't logic.

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:In any society people are giving up their ability to act against the rules of that society. That is a sacrifice.
Q8: Correct,

Thank you. Thank you for finally recognizing what I was saying. Such a breath of fresh air!

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... but if you are allowed to pick the society (the set of laws or rules) you want to live under, you are making a voluntary decision, and this is different than being born into a set of rules that you can never escape, which is involuntary. Do you agree?

Yes. Please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

(03-10-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:(notwithstanding the part where I did explain the methods people use to come to decisions)

You link to the Wikipedia page on morality. Notice on morality and politics, there is only quote, from a Libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

Quote:... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

That is exactly what Bastiat said in "The Law", which is one of the most basic guides that all libertarians use today. What Chomsky is saying is that just because some individual has some title or rank (ie in the government) doesn't mean he has superhuman rights. It is only moral for them to do what we as individuals also can do. Nothing more.

Yep. While on the subject: please let me know where in anything I've previously written I've said otherwise. (hint: I haven't)

...

(04-10-2013 06:25 AM)I and I Wrote:  You are now experiencing the Chas/Cljr shuffle. They will argue against what you say yet never make any claim themselves thus allowing them to use the "I never implied/said.....

Ask them yes or no questions. Drinking Beverage

That, my dear boy, is because you wouldn't know honesty if it bit your testicles off. Although deliberately misspelling my name would have been real edgy in grade four, so points for that.

You have a congenital problem:
Someone says 'A'.
You accuse them of saying 'B'.
When corrected you accuse them of being inconsistent.
This confuses and angers you.

It is as predictable as it is pitiable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-10-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr,

Based on your answers to my last questions, then it seems we agree on the core, fundamental issues:

The social contract is only valid if it is entered into voluntarily, with consent. And the only way one can consent to something is if one has a choice NOT to do it. So laws that have a limited jurisdiction (ie local/state/province) level can arguably be entered into consensually provided the residents are free to relocate if they find the law too burdensome, but if the law is universal (it covers everywhere that you can legally live), then you have NOT consented to it since you have no other choice.

You answered 'yes' to my questions #1 - #5, confirming you share the same view. But do you understand now that on virtually every issue where liberals and libertarians disagree, the disagreement always boils down to liberals wanting the law to have universal scope (ie national level) vs. libertarians wanting the scope to be limited (ie state/local level)? We can pick, say, the top 20 policy issues that liberals disagree with libertarians on, and in every case that is the issue. So, by answering 'yes', you've conceded libertarians are correct on this issue, and liberals are wrong and violating the social contract since they are denying people the opportunity to consent to the law.

This explains why Romneycare, which limited its scope to residents of Massachusetts is moral, but Obamacare, which has universal scope, is immoral.

Quote:Let's examine my point:
Morality is a system of rules.
Morality is used to make decisions.
THEREFORE rules are used to make decisions.

Yes, IF there are actually rules besides “because I think it's right.” But I've asked you repeatedly to state those rules and you keep running from that challenge. The closest you came was posting a link to the Morality page on wikipedia. But the whole section on 'politics' simply iterates that the most basic “rule” for something to be moral is the libertarian principle of universality, which is something that I've showed you libertarians follow and liberals do not.

I gave one example of gay marriage. Do I, as an individual, have the right to tell you what kind of family arrangement you can and cannot have? Of course not. It's none of my business. So, then even if I get 51% of the population to agree with me, we STILL do not have the right to dictate this to you. Therefore, it is a violation of the principle of universality for straight people to deny gay people the right to form a family union, because it would be a wrong if gay people denied straight people the right to form a family union.

Libertarian have followed this “rule” of morality for hundreds of years, and opposed the 'marriage licensing' laws that liberals and conservatives put in place 100 years ago and have been defending up until very recently. Because libertarians follow this “rule” that defines morality, our views don't change, since the rules don't change.

Q: If liberals similarly followed “rules” defining morality, then why is it that 30 years ago American liberals agreed that gay people should be locked up and arrested, whereas today they believe they should have equal rights? If liberals followed a “rule”, why this flip flop? Did the “rule” change? If so, what was the “rule” liberals were following 30 years ago, and what is the “rule” they're following today? Please be specific and state the rule(s).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr,

Based on your answers to my last questions, then it seems we agree on the core, fundamental issues:

The social contract is only valid if it is entered into voluntarily, with consent. And the only way one can consent to something is if one has a choice NOT to do it. So laws that have a limited jurisdiction (ie local/state/province) level can arguably be entered into consensually provided the residents are free to relocate if they find the law too burdensome, but if the law is universal (it covers everywhere that you can legally live), then you have NOT consented to it since you have no other choice.

You may recognize that as what I've said several times.

I didn't deny your precepts; I examined them, given the sweepingly facetious and dismissive way in which you stated them. At which point I was foolish enough to respond to your subsequent dishonesty in repeated mischaracterisation of me.

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You answered 'yes' to my questions #1 - #5, confirming you share the same view. But do you understand now that on virtually every issue where liberals and libertarians disagree, the disagreement always boils down to liberals wanting the law to have universal scope (ie national level) vs. libertarians wanting the scope to be limited (ie state/local level)? We can pick, say, the top 20 policy issues that liberals disagree with libertarians on, and in every case that is the issue. So, by answering 'yes', you've conceded libertarians are correct on this issue, and liberals are wrong and violating the social contract since they are denying people the opportunity to consent to the law.

This explains why Romneycare, which limited its scope to residents of Massachusetts is moral, but Obamacare, which has universal scope, is immoral.

I invite you to consider once again the genesis of jurisdictional boundaries. I invite you to consider once again the genesis of division of powers.

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Let's examine my point:
Morality is a system of rules.
Morality is used to make decisions.
THEREFORE rules are used to make decisions.

Yes, IF there are actually rules besides “because I think it's right.”

Thank you. This has apparently finally sunk in.

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But I've asked you repeatedly to state those rules and you keep running from that challenge. The closest you came was posting a link to the Morality page on wikipedia. But the whole section on 'politics' simply iterates that the most basic “rule” for something to be moral is the libertarian principle of universality, which is something that I've showed you libertarians follow and liberals do not.

Because - and apparently, hard though I find it to believe, this is news to you - different people have different moralities.

Most moral systems are based on the same foundations: be kind, be fair, be reciprocal. This is an evolutionary and neurological basis for this. There is nonetheless a wide vareity of shading.

It's absurd to expect "liberals" to have one set of "rules". Perhaps you ought to be more careful with ludicrous generalisations in the future.

(no, really; you can look it up)

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I gave one example of gay marriage. Do I, as an individual, have the right to tell you what kind of family arrangement you can and cannot have? Of course not. It's none of my business. So, then even if I get 51% of the population to agree with me, we STILL do not have the right to dictate this to you. Therefore, it is a violation of the principle of universality for straight people to deny gay people the right to form a family union, because it would be a wrong if gay people denied straight people the right to form a family union.

Libertarian have followed this “rule” of morality for hundreds of years, and opposed the 'marriage licensing' laws that liberals and conservatives put in place 100 years ago and have been defending up until very recently. Because libertarians follow this “rule” that defines morality, our views don't change, since the rules don't change.

The only possible light in which this seems relevant to me is if one assumes others' morals are prone to change.

After all, and as we all know, libertarians never disagree about anything ever, nor change their minds about anything.

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: If liberals

Because yet again apparently "liberals" are responsible for literally everything, I guess...

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  similarly followed “rules” defining morality,

Which "they" did, insofar as "they" had morality - notwithstanding there is no "they", but whatever...

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  then why is it that 30 years ago American liberals agreed that gay people should be locked up and arrested, whereas today they believe they should have equal rights?

Because, trivially, "they" ( Rolleyes ) changed "their" minds. Is there a point to this?

(04-10-2013 11:14 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If liberals followed a “rule”, why this flip flop? Did the “rule” change? If so, what was the “rule” liberals were following 30 years ago, and what is the “rule” they're following today? Please be specific and state the rule(s).

Trolltacularly facetious. Good job.

Asking me to explain to you what other people may well have thought at another point in time is supposed to accomplish... what, precisely?

A person's understanding of morality may change with time, just as, say, literally every other thing in the universe may change with time.

I and I is the one who can read minds in the past; you should probably ask him. Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: