Euthanasia - Opinions. Please read whole post before responding...

Yeah I hope so... I know it's acceptable in some other countries but not in the UK. I hope they revise the system and hopefully show more interest in this

I know for sure if something like that ever happened to me I'd much rather be allowed to die, or at least have the freedom to chose what I want to do instead of being told a simple 'no' and having to go to court for 5 years to still find out the answer is no :/

 

Skimmed them, my social contract bit at the bottom should address them from the get-go. I also haven't proof-read this, so there'll be a lot of bad phrasing and so on.

We're on the same page.

Well with regards to suicide, yea, I find it really strange. Funnily enough, if you fail in your suicide attempt (it's possible, and happens), then you get locked up for 'your own protection'. That said, if someone wants to blow their brains out with a gun, do I think they should do it? No. But do I support their right to, sure. It's like freedom of speech. I may not like what you say, but I'll support your right to say it.

Alright, so you accept the statement that people on their own life, but reject that they can make make decisions?

Sure, but there's nothing wrong with actions that are mutually voluntary.

It's a matter of how the money was obtained, not what it's used for. It's like rape, it's not about who you rape, it's about the fact that you have raped.

If a string of numbers and a piece of paper is all you want for a large portion of your income, where's your address? I'll send you a bit of paper.

Ok, how is this different from slavery. You should also expect to be a slave if you're living in your masters house, and benefiting form your masters services. You should expect to be a slave if you're willing to use the currency the master offered to you - (insert currency). In addition, If I planted a wonderful garden, that increased the value of all properties in the vicinity because it looked good, does that mean I can charge them for it? No.

I don't agree with fiat currency, it makes fractional reserve banking easier.

This has been largely dealt with. Also, playing a game does not imply you want to play it. Being a slave doesn't mean you want to be a slave, it just means that you are one. Paying taxes, and using government services doesn't mean you endorse socialist policies, capital destruction, war, etc. I don't want any of this, I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to use government services (I'd want to use private services that can compete in a freemarket environment), I want 'capitalistic' policies, I want capital accumulation, and I want peace.

Devils advocate: But what if the preponderance of moral virtue culminating form the theives actions, and subsequent actions outweighed the perceived moral virulence? What if because of this you became a better person, and what if the thief could feed his family, and because you were rich, you didn't suffer at all other than the brief moment of shock?

I'll deal with the social contact later.

You're arguing that governments are necessary because they are correlated with desirable consequences?

Well actually... You need the governments permissions to leave. If you don't like the way the government is running things, and you don't obtain permission to leave the country because you don't consent to the laws, provided the government catches you, you will be imprisoned or killed. The problem still remains. If you however decide to stay... I go up to person x, and say, hey, I'm a good accountant, I can do your books for you for $5,000. Person x says, that sounds like a good deal. How does this involve government services? Why is the government entitled to this money? If you are saying that someone is entitled to a portion of the fruits of your labour, you are advocating a form of slavery.

You're right, an argument be fallacious, yet the conclusion still right. However, since I disagree with your conclusion, and shown your reasoning is a fallacy, I see no reason to accept it. I'm more than happy to debate it, but can you give a reasoned argument in support of it?

Burden of proof is on you; appeal to fear fallacy also.

Will deal with this later.

The thief initiated force, self-defense is justified. Also, killing itself is not immoral.

Self-defense. My true stance is more or less the non-aggression principle (I've just tried to omit things because, if you hadn't noticed, this is very long haha). Also, I'm sure you've heard this cliche: the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Look at communism, they tried to achieve a morally, economically, and socially virtuous society, and it ended with a handsome death count.

Forcing people to do something against their autonomous will (Controlling certain aspects of their life) is immoral. Period.

X has done nothing morally wrong (violated property rights, initiated force, etc.). Man walks up and puts a gun to X's face, and tells person X to (insert action), or he will shoot him. Is what the man doing moral? Does person X doing said action mean he supports what is happening to him?

The mafia offered protection to the people, does that mean it was 'majorly moral'?

What if you refuse to pay the fine? You get a jail sentence. What if you resist arrest? You get shot. What if you get shot? All this, because you disagreed with a law. Now, you can use examples such as murder, rape, etc. What If I use examples such as cutting trees down, fishing, minimum wage, having sex, drugs; victim less crimes.

The bifurcation fallacy only applies when there are more than 2 options. An action can be moral, or it is the case that it is not moral (commonly referred to as immoral). On the flip side, an action can be immoral, or not immoral. An action can't be moral, and not moral simultaneously. To tackle your example, giving money away is not immoral, that is the only action being performed.

You've still evaded the point. Is giving to the poor a good thing to do? Sure. Is robbing people to give to the poor a good thing to do? No. Even if providing protection to other people is moral, funding that protection through immoral means is still immoral. You have good intentions, but you've gone about it the wrong way.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. A fallacy means the argument does not logically prove the conclusion.

That is a fallacy. Laws are justified because they generally affect lives positively is an appeal to consequences fallacy. The same argument can be said for slavery. Slaves are justified, because they generally affect lives positively.

Self-defense is fine. Initiating force is not. You are not initiating force when you shoot the thief. You are when you, let's say lock a suicidal person up for 'the greater good' because you've 'weighed the situation up'.

Fallacies apply to arguments. An argument that is a fallacy means that the arguments does not logically prove it's conclusion.

False consciousness; people don't realize they are slaves. Here's a 13 minute video:

Ask yourself honestly, do you think you are a slave to your parents? The answer is no.

Anyway, you're not a slave to your parents, the relationship is purely voluntary. There are no such things as moral obligations, so the parents aren't obligated to feed you. Nor you obligated to stay in the house. It's just a harmony of interests that keeps you together.

Think I addressed this (skimmed, and seemed familiar). Also, just read the end; appeal to popularity fallacy. Look at the holocaust.

There is a morally ambiguous area here for the initiation of force principle. If you know that Billy will initiate force, then you are justified in shooting him.

God exists, or God doesn't exist. We may weigh the evidence out in support of his existence/non-existence, but he either exists, or doesn't exist. Reality is absolute, and objective. It contains no contradictions. An action cannot have 2 contradicting qualities simultaneously, it cannot be both moral, and immoral simultaneously, just like a tree cannot be a dog while at the same time being a tree.

Here's a video:



Social Contract:

I'll keep this very brief. First, a social contract doesn't exist. If it does, show it to me. If you can't, and you agree that it is impossible to actually show me that it exists, then it is an abstraction. Either way, the statement that: the social contract doesn't exist, is correct.

Second, the social 'contract' does not satisfy the elements of a legal contract, simply google elements of a contract.

In order to use the social contract argument you must a) show that such a contract exists, b) show that such a contract is legally valid.

 

This is getting really long. I'll try to nit pick the points that are common to each other, and I'll skim through some of the points that I agree with.

Okay.

I reject that they can make the best decision. This doesn't need much justification. Bad decisions are made everyday. I feel, in the case of suicide, I would be a better candidate to offer a suicidal person another solution, because his/her mind is bogged down with emotions such that the majority of his/her thoughts are irrational.

Sentence was taken out of context.

Oversimplification. Social security number and a citizenship are not simply a string of numbers and a piece of paper. With this mentality, we're simply bags of chemicals, money is just paper, etc. I don't think I need to elaborate too much, it's pretty obvious what the problem is here. Simply, your social security number permits you to work in America, and is what can be used to charge you for taxes. You know this when you apply for one, yet you still apply for one, so you're essentially agreeing to the taxes part.

It's very simple - first, slaves don't really get benefits. Second, and most importantly, you cannot escape from slavery. In America, if you do not want to pay taxes, you can drop everything and leave. Ever heard of a slave, living in the master's house, that doesn't actually work for the master? No, it's ridiculous. The same applies to a US citizen with a social security number, citizenship, etc. living in America, not paying taxes.

And you missed the point with currency. If it wasn't for the concept of the US dollar that the government gave you, you would essentially be worth nothing. If you reject it, your TV wouldn't be worth $500, it would be worth whatever value in whatever currency you made up. The problem is, the currency you made up wouldn't be universal, so it wouldn't really have any value to anyone other than yourself. Would you want that, or do you agree to using the government's 'US dollar service'?

Let's say I was a slave for a man who makes treadmills. Let's say the man offers a treadmill to every slave who won't tell on him. There are no tangible contracts. Now, let's say I take this treadmill, and end up telling everyone about him. Is that right? Of course not. It's the same case - the government is offering you services with the tax money, you're accepting said services, and in the end, you're complaining about tax money. Stop using the services first, then complain about tax money, or else you're being hypocritical.

And look, apparently Nike was accused of using underage children in their factories. Of course, I don't support that, much like how I don't support governments having wars, etc. But still, it's either I stop buying from Nike and complain, or I continue buying, and stop being hypocritical.

Then I don't disagree - it contributed to the greater good. But face it, this is real life - your example is EXTREMELY hypothetical. There's no way I'd be okay with the thief taking my money because, much like everyone else, I'm selfish when it comes to money. But if a thief stole a billion dollars from Bill Gates, used it to treat a million cancer patients, and Bill Gates publicly stated that he was fine with it, then no, I see this action as majorly moral, as it contributed to the greater good. Again, weighing things out.

Desirable consequences >> Undesirable Consequences. Notice the '>>', rather than the '>'.

Without them I believe the undesirable consequences would rise. My opinion.

Permission? Come on, it's as simple as buying an airplane ticket. I left without permission. You'd only need permission if you were some criminal. In such cases, the government has every right to keep you in jail, as if you justifiably did some sort of action that classifies you as a criminal, you have the potential to cause harm to others. Not paying your taxes doesn't put you on this blacklist. Lots of people leave America to avoid tax payments. It's more common than you think - a simple Google search would prove so. Some are even willing to drop their US citizenship to not pay taxes. So, again, my argument holds.

And the government is entitled to taxes in such a transaction because without their currency (the US dollar), the accountant's services are worth nothing (in the sense of a unified agreement). Example: Let's say there was no US dollar currency. The accountant measures the value of his/her work through pearls - Person X measures it through gold. How can Person X pay the accountant, if there's no unified agreement to what a certain mass of pearls is equal to in a certain mass of gold? That's where the US dollar comes in - a governmental 'service'. Notice how everything in the world (other currencies, gold, etc.) are always measured using the US dollar as a reference point. That's essentially a 'service' provided by the US government.

Yes, I can. The 'government' (quotes around that) in my country used to charge taxes on a good amount of things (including grocery shopping). However, the people revolted, and many shop clerks cheated these taxes away from the payments by taking them themselves/waiving them, and new businesses would not pay the government such taxes (it was only 10%, by the way). We used to lose electricity around 4 hours a day when we paid the government taxes - now, it's more like 12 hours a day. There's a correlation. Causation? Nope. But a few years ago, there wasn't even a causation between smoking and lung cancer, even though it seemed fairly obvious. I can say with high certainty that the fact that my society has rejected paying the government taxes, we are being more deprived of electricity.

Proof is for certainty - I said could. There's a probability.

Appeal to fear fallacy doesn't say anything to my probable statement. Can we agree that some fallacies are better to debunk arguments than others? Look at the examples on Wikipedia for the appeal to fear fallacy. Majority of them have a good certainty, that can be backed up by statistics:

"If you hold your breath for a long time, you will die".
"If you continue to drink, you will die early as your father did."
"If you cannot graduate from high school, you will live in poverty for the rest of your life."

Of course, Wikipedia tried to make them seem silly by saying 'as your father did' and 'for the rest of your life', but even without these terms, they'd still be committing the same fallacy.

Okay, less dramatic example - a bully is at school, we're sitting having lunch, and he's talking trash about all of my friends, except myself - so I say something mean to him (an innately immoral action), that embarrasses him, and makes him stop. Not really self-defense, but I'd make the bully stop, using his same, immoral tactics (similar to 'fight racism with racism'), and hence, fulfilling the will of the other people having lunch with me, but going against the will of the bully. Is what I did majorly moral? Yup. Is it the most moral thing I could have done? Nope, I could have told on him. But that's off the point.

Also, why don't you consider killing against the will of another human being immoral?

I liked how you associated communism with the quote. But anyways, look at the example above. Let's face it - the US government is not that aggressive with its citizens, unless they're aggressive with them. Self-defense principle, in a sense.

I agree with that. But you changed your sentence. Before, you did NOT say 'autonomous will'. Deciding to not pay taxes is not an autonomous will - your actions break the social contract, and effect EVERYONE, no matter how minuscule. I disagree with your objection to the social contract - more on that later. Trying to save space!

In any case, autonomous will is pretty vague. I mean, almost every will has an effect on others.

Nope, you forgot to weigh things out. The mafia did many immoral actions (killing, stealing, etc.) to provide protection. Probably around 99% immoral, 1% moral. Weighing that out, their actions are obviously majorly immoral.

You still have the right to object. If your objection is good, great - you shouldn't be penalized.

And let's talk about your examples. You said it's immoral to force something against the autonomous will of another human being - great, I agree! But cutting down trees is not autonomous. Didn't like the way the trees looked? What if another person did? You're going against their will. So the person cutting down the trees is, according to you, doing something immoral, as they're going against the will of possibly a good number of people.

Fishing? We know why there's a ban/moderation on that - the fish could become extinct in a certain area if you fish too much, meaning no more fish for the other residents. Again, it's not autonomous.

We can go on forever. But autonomous wills are scarce. So your previous statement, whilst I believe is true, doesn't have much value in your argument.

Never objected against this. But you're missing the point here - you can't just look at one action committed, and conclude either 'moral' or 'immoral' for the entire scenario based on said action, because generally the scenario is the coalescence of many actions, where each action is either moral or immoral. You see what I'm saying? Go to the thief example - we shoot the thief (immoral), and save many people (extremely moral). Now, for the entire scenario, was the action moral, or immoral? Majorly, it was moral. You said earlier that the nature of laws is control, so it cannot be moral, as control is, apparently, immoral. I'm objecting against this. Control, even if certainly immoral, is just one part of it. You have to look at the whole picture - and when you do, you'll see that laws do many moral things, even if it's through immoral means. Don't forget, we're speaking about laws - not about killing, loving, and other simple actions.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It works with conclusions - generally, causation arguments, not correlations. Also, to say something is probable is not a definite conclusion.

Yes, my fault, bad wording - the law can be justified if is majorly moral, after weighing things out. Slavery cannot, after weighing the morality/immorality out.

Exactly, I'm not disagreeing to any of this. What I previously stated was suggesting a correlation, without a definite conclusion - something where fallacies are rendered useless.

I can't see the video?

Ask yourself honestly, are you a slave, in the sense that you were trying to elicit, to the government?

Now, let's look at the definition of slave: A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Now, the definition is pretty harsh, but it applies somewhat to the government, and to families (when you're a child). And no, the relationship is absolutely NOT voluntary, you're born into a family, and involuntarily conditioned as a child to love them, respect, and obey what they tell you during your childhood years (normally).

And yes, there are no moral obligations for our parents to feed us, take care of us, etc. So why do most perform such actions, anyways? Another phenomenon similar to the social contract theory - the filial contract - is available in the first link I sent you. It answers this question.

Okay, look at how World War 2 ended - appeal to popularity fallacy. Was it wrong? No. These fallacies are really getting us nowhere. We're talking about if the law is majorly moral, or not. Speaking of wills was just another way to elaborate.

So you're saying I'm right. I wasn't the one who said shooting Billy at the mall was wrong. It goes back to your previous argument (the one I was arguing against) that any action against somebody's will is immoral. You fixed this sentence earlier in your new post by adding the adjective 'autonomous', but we know that most wills are rarely truly autonomous anyways - especially in Billy's case.

It all sounds logical, but it is quite irrelevant, and just doesn't apply. Simple example - I eat sweet and salty popcorn. Sweet is the opposite of salty (some argue it's the opposite of sour, but just think of sweet and sour chicken if that's the case). Is it sweet? Or salty? According to what you said, it can't be both.

That's because you're talking about basic, singular entities. Of course, salt is salty - it can't be sweet. Sugar is sweet - it can't be salty. Now, mix 90% salt with 10% sugar, and the mixture is majorly salty, but it still has a hint of sweetness. Definitely not the same taste as 100% salt. You see where I'm getting at? Enforcing a law isn't a single moral/immoral action - it's the coalescence of many moral/immoral actions that all lead up to the entire scenario being majorly moral, or majorly immoral. You have to look at the bigger picture. When I say something like 'the law is both moral and immoral', I mean 'some laws are majorly moral, some are majorly immoral', but in the end, I'm arguing that the law, in general, is majorly moral. There's a difference when I say 'a law', and 'the law'. 'A law' is enforced by a series of smaller moral/immoral actions, which, in the end, lead to this certain law either being majorly moral, or majorly immoral. 'The law' contains both the majorly moral laws, and majorly immoral laws. I already agreed to some singular laws being majorly immoral (after being weighed out). For example, if drug conspiracies are true, I think it's terrible that the government would ban them just for their own profit. But in the end, I'm arguing that the majorly moral laws outweigh the majorly immoral ones.

I'm sorry, I didn't watch it. 45 minutes of typing, and a 12 minute video really will take me off track. Perhaps you can summarize, or tell me the important parts? I'd prefer to hear them from you, really.

Woah, you got me wrong! I'm not arguing that this is a tangible contract! This is a theory.

But both your guidelines have no basis in themselves. For the filial contract, which says that it's expected for my parents to feed me, take care of me, and whatnot, I need a tangible contract, that's legally valid? Of course not. The social contract is a theory - I never said, neither did any other website, that it's a tangible contract. It's name is just conveniently 'the social contract'. Notice in my previous post, when you said there was no agreement, I said there was somewhat - in, as you agreed, an abstract form.

It has to do with expectations. By using the government's services, you should expect to pay taxes. If not, then we go back to the hypocrisy argument I gave above. I suggest you read both of the websites I sent to you entirely; if you don't agree, it's okay, it'd just be another perspective for you. I'll try to get to your video soon, but 45 minutes typing is a lot of time!

 

You should probably read the last 3 paragraphs before reading the beginning, I think that may further clarify my position.

Alright.

I agree, lots of people make bad decisions, I just disagree that we should force them to do what we want (make good decisions).

Not really. Idk how it works in America, but in Australia you get a Tax File Number (TFN). If you don't get a TFN, all your employers legally must charge you the highest tax threshold. So, even if you don't consent to a TFN, and even if you want to sell your labour, the government will still say it's entitled to a portion of the fruits of your labour. Tell me, take all variables away, do you think people have the right to the fruits of your labour?

Yes they do, look at slavery in rome. Many slaves married their masters, escaping slavery. Slaves were looked after, they were fed, clothed, etc. All they had to do was do x on command. You say that if you don't want to pay taxes, you should leave. I didn't choose to be born here, why should I move, from a place where I was born, because there is a criminal organisation in charge that has indoctrinated the populace? Imagine if you were born in the times of the mafia, and your parents business was constantly being looted every few months for protection money. What if you had a conversation of your neighbour and they said, if you don't like it, leave.

The point is, just because you stay, does not mean you agree

Not true. Look at the subjective theory of value. The US dollar is just a bit of paper, the reasoning for its worth can be explained by the aforementioned theory. If there was no US dollar, this value would not diminish, we would just trade other items with the equivalent value.

Well, I believe in some places that it is illegal to barter... That aside, so what if you use the 'US dollar service', it's hardly a service, and if they don't care, then what's up? You'll say, therefore you can be taxed, the answer is no, it does not mean you consent to being taxed, nor does it imply it.

Firstly, you have to remember government crowds out private enterprise, either by regulation, or being a natural monopoly. The government also typically provides a poor quality service.

What's wrong with that? It's the governments fault anyway. The government doesn't allow businesses to set-up shop and produce in (wherever). If it was a free market, then many businesses would have set up, because the cost of labour is the highest in the cost of production process, so businesses would flock their to set up shop and make a profit. This would stimulate the local economy, bringing more people out of poverty, and give these poor children a better wage. In addition, with increased education standards etc, these children wouldn't have to work, they could go to school, and their parents would be able to provide an income. Nike is not the problem, the government is. Remember, this thing was voluntary, Nike did not force those kids to work for them.

Which form of utilitarian/consequentialist are you?

Let's presuppose that is true. It doesn't then legitimize the government's immoral actions.

Passport.

Does this include smoking?

Not really, you've just proven the government gives permission freely. Guess where the people went to, ANOTHER GOVERNMENT RULED ZONE! You just went from horse shit, to dog shit; fact of the matter is, you don't want to be in shit! It's just the lesser of 2 evils.

Subjective theory of value, also there are many currencies around the world, and they have an exchange rate. At least with currencies that can't be hyperinflated (printed), the exchange rates would be stable.

Why doesn't private enterprise set-up shop and provide electricity? This seems strange, considering human nature. Unless of course they can't make a profit, but why?

I don't mean the word literally. Logical proof would mean a sound and valid argument. Empirical proof would mean a lot of evidence, with little/no counter evidence.

If I'm not wrong (idk about this), but there are formal fallacies, and informal fallacies. It is with informal fallacies, primarily, that the argument can be fallacious, yet the conclusion correct. Whatever the case, fallacies in general mean that the argument does not logically prove the conclusion (logical proof is relatively easy to provide, as opposed to empirical proof).

Bully's initiate force. Nothing wrong with having a bit of pride and defending yourself.

Provided the person didn't initiate force, it's a violation of their property rights/right to life. If the person did initiate force, then he should expect the person to defend themselves, and sometimes self-defense means killing another person.

[Insert Police Brutality video]

If anything, you should've stated your objections to the social contract =,=

Right, but you don't initiate force.

This is where I think the problem is; you're a utilitarian! Maybe I'll get to this later.

Who owns the trees? Who owns the fish? If you cut down the trees, and fish, you are not initiating force on them, you may be going against their will so to speak, but you're not initiating force on them. Also, the reason fish/trees become extinct is because no one owns them! If someone owns them, then they would want to keep them alive, right?

I think I clarified what I meant.

Shooting the thief was not immoral.

You want to use violence as a means to achieve your ends. You never however do this in your everyday life, but you will give a monopoly on an institution that is known to cause many atrocities in the world. Why? Because it's 'majorly moral'? Pointing a gun to someones head and making them do x is morally wrong, and that is what the law does. Even if you point it at a druggies head and stop him from abusing, the action, for which is what morality is supposed to make a judgement call on, is wrong! The results can be 'desirable' (I'd argue that they aren't, see child abuse, communism, fascism, etc), but the action was immoral.

You're still trying to conclude that something is probable.

Well, sure it can on a micro level. Guy is born into a slave household, he gets educated, fed, shelter, etc, so long as he does x on command. If the master kicks him out, it's likely that he will die, especially if he's young.

You're still concluding something. x, therefore y. Just because y is 'probably', 'possible', does not mean you're not giving a conclusion.

Yes, and do I have freedoms? Sure, a lot when we consider past societies. But so do cows, they have the freedom to walk around, and so on.

Well, during the age of 0-5, you really don't deserve rights, you're not rational. Are you arguing that legally, the child is a slave? I wonder who controls the legal system. Also, conditioning comes about through interaction, it's a natural byproduct. The interaction between you and your parents is a voluntary one. If parents initiate force on you, they are bad parents, that doesn't mean the child is a slave.

Also, let's look at the definition. Legal property, perhaps you could be that in the form of a citizen. Forced to obey them, that's the law. O, that's it. The problem is, this definition of slavery only defines slavery in terms of what it was known as in the past. See the above video, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Same objections to the filial contract apply. Also, I'd say it's a combination of biology that makes us want to look after our young, try take a baby away from it's mother. Another factor would be that it's socialized into us. Also, we do things we don't have a moral obligation to. We don't have a moral obligation to give to the poor, but we, for the most part, still do. Is there some sort of welfare contract?

In a purely voluntaryist society, wars wouldn't happen. I'd also like to point out, Germany was totalitarian, guess where the shift in policies have been in the past century? It's been towards totalitarianism. Anyway, to cut down on words I'll avoid this

No, the appeal to popularity fallacy is a big one. If the majority of people willed for slavery to be moral, it would not make it moral. If the majority of people willed for murder to be moral, it would not make it moral. If the majority of people willed for laws to be moral, it would not make it moral. If the majority of people willed for rape to be moral, it would not be, o wait, nah it's because the majority willed for it...

The initiation of force is wrong. I don't see a problem with preventing people from initiating force, provided you know they will. You're taking somebodies 'will' out of context. There is a caveat, which I didn't add in, which is common when people use that phrase. Loosely, the non-aggression principle is that actions should be legal, so long as they do not violate the rights of other people, namely, property rights. Here's a short explanation:


Also, by 'autonomous' I mean uncoerced. You are not coerced into debating me, so your actions to debate me would be classified as autonomous. Taxation on the other hand is coerced, if I don't do it, I'll be threatened with violence.

Your perception of the world is subjetive, reality itself is objective however.

Reasoning by false analogy. You're mixing up something that is subject to the law of the excluded middle, from something where a spectrum exists. God either exists, or he doesn't exist, there's no spectrum of God exists 10%, God exists 20%.

So, you think putting guns to peoples head, and forcing them to do what you want is justified on certain occasions? You face a common utilitarian calculation problem.

I can't really summarize properly. Though, it basically makes the case of how you are a slave, and how the past has lead to this.

The social contract either exists, or it doesn't exist. You've argued that it doesn't actually exist, instead, it exists as an abstraction.

It's not a satisfying argument, the fruits of my labour can be taken from me against my will because of a contract that doesn't exist.

I've read the arguments (before) that the websites are trying to articulate.

Not really, using something, and not contributing is not hypocritical. Especially if (a) it's the only thing you can use, ie. monopoly, (b) the government caused the monopoly, excessive regulation etc. (c) the government services is of shitty quality, which it typically is.

Also, I would much rather use private services in a free market situation. Fact is however, the government prevents a free market. The government should be paying me money for fucking up society. There are 2 things I 'demand', the first is a free market, the second is social liberty. Taxation itself hampers the free market and violates social liberty (Right-libertarianism). While you can say that the laws are 'majorly moral', free markets and social liberty are even more 'majorly moral'.

Now, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's keep this tenacious government in power. Would you support a free-market (a proper one, not the bs one's in a text book). This would mean NO regulation, including no minimum wage, barriers to entry, etc. Would you also support social liberty, for example, it is legal for people to do anything they want so long as they do not violate the rights of others. This means, that it would be illegal to rape, steal, murder, and tax, but, prostitution, drugs, etc. would be legal. Remember, in a true free-market, the government doesn't need to intervene and offer public services. The only thing the government does is have a military, where citizens voluntarily sign up (not a draft), have a police force, which only investigates crime (it cannot violate the rights of others). Have courts where parties must voluntarily attend (businesses would put it in their contract that in the case of a dispute, you must go to court).

What's wrong with a society like this? Resources would be allocated most efficiently due to the free market. Prices will be cheap, and quality of goods and services would be high due to the free market. Poverty will decrease because peoples purchasing power will increase as a result of the decrease in prices due to the free market. Crime will decrease because educational standards will increase due to the free market. Unemployment will decrease because everyone could sell their labour without restriction (minimum wage) due to the free market. Where does social liberty come into this? Well, citizens can do what they want, and since they're not violating the rights of others, you have a society with maximum freedom, minimal crime, and economic prosperity. Is it me, or does this sound like what America once was? Governments primary objective was to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. How can it possible do this when so many things are illegal that have nothing to do with such a protection?

I think it comes across that I'm against laws period, that needs more clarification. I think that you can have a society without laws enforce by the government yet still maintain stability, and have rules. It's just that people actually voluntarily consent to those rules (Contract). However, to work within the system, murder, rape, theft would all be illegal, simply because that such actions violate the rights of the individual.


Didn't proof read again, hopefully it's not too bad haha.

 

You're still working for a business that is registered under the Australian government. You're still using Australia's mode of currency. You had objections to this later on in your post. I'll attempt my refutation of them below.

You're arguing that the slaves in Rome had good living conditions - better than what the average Roman citizen had? Don't forget - we have to trace back the argument. You were rhetorically asking for the difference between a slave and a normal citizen performing normal routines in America. I suggest you read more about slavery in Rome, as the differences are quite clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Also, perhaps 'escape' wasn't the appropriate word - 'leave' is more appropriate. In America, you can freely leave, if you'd like. Slaves, as you pointed out, had to go through drastic measures to escape slavery. This again shows how slavery is different from governmental 'control'.

And you're lucky to even be born in a place like Australia. This place was established way before you - you did absolutely nothing to establish it, and yet you already expect to have the rights to own land there, work there, etc. Why is that? It's fairly obvious why you expect that by now, I won't even say it.

Now, let's imagine you are a bit less lucky and were born in an African tribe, that was ruled by a blood hungry dictator. Surely, you'd be against the 'government', but still be living there. Now, if an opportunity was given to you where you could leave, even if you left to another country that was still ruled by a dictator, but a less blood hungry one at that, you wouldn't take it?

Saying the US dollar is just a bit of paper is really simplifying it. If that's the case, then we should freak out when we burn a piece of paper - after all, we're burning money!

The theory explains the worth of goods. 'Worth' is subjective. The US government attempts to give you an objective mode to purchase subjectively priced goods. Understand it this way: Person X made his own currency - he calls it Currency X. Person Y made his own currency - he calls it Currency Y. Person X wants to buy a TV from Person Y. Person Y tells him the TV costs 500 units of Currency Y. How will Person X know how much to pay for the TV, where both parties are happy? Let's say they settle on an agreement. What happens when Person Z enters the picture, with Currency Z, and he wants to buy the TV off now from Person Y? You see, we need some objectivity in the value of money (not the value of goods, that conforms appropriately to the subjective theory of value).

The US dollar would make things easier in this case - 'helping', in a sense, and hence, conforming to the definition of 'service'.

It's hypocritical. It's like Julia telling me to try a cookie from a fresh batch that she just made, I tell her it tastes bad, but then I take away all her cookies and eat them for myself at home. You're arguing that it's okay to be a hypocrite?

And you're making it seem that the government forced Nike to hire children for labor. Okay, well, then how come Adidas doesn't hire children for labor? The government doesn't force anything. It's the company's choice - one I may not agree with. If I don't agree with it, I'll either boycott the company, or I'll continue to use their services but stop complaining about them, to avoid being hypocritical.

And even if it was voluntary, so what? If Nike was a pimp, who sold many prostitutes who voluntarily joined Nike because they love their job, you wouldn't be against Nike? Assume you were against prostitution in this case. Being against it is irrelevant - I'd just have to fill that hole with something that you were against.

You're accusing me of giving an opinion to a hypothetical situation that I said would never occur. But this is the real life. Even if Bill Gates said he was happy with the thief taking his money, I wouldn't believe he really was in the real life. However, the hypothetical situation states that everyone is indeed happy. The course of action caused happiness for all 3 of its stakeholders. Irregardless of happiness, justice is subjective. All 3 are fine with the action. How is justice not served to the 3 stakeholders then?

Nope, it doesn't. But I'm arguing that the government is majorly moral anyways, not completely moral. I've already acknowledged that the government has some immoral actions.

Wrong - you normally can leave the country without your passport (unless you're a criminal). You can just never come back (which you probably wouldn't want to do anyways, considering you don't like its policies). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport

Don't believe? It's already been done numerous times (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/more_citizens_vote_with_their_feet_CTshpQumBXMZmUXsfw6OTM). Americans are renouncing their citizenship, passports, etc. to avoid taxes, but are welcome to go to scores of other countries.

"In such cases, the government has every right to keep you in jail, as if you justifiably did some sort of action that classifies you as a criminal, you have the potential to cause harm to others."

What you're saying is extremely irrelevant. If you're going to take my sentences that literally, then perhaps a little girl who pinches her baby brother is 'causing harm to others' and hence, should be classified as a criminal, and be sentenced to jail. Of course I don't mean that. My point is very clear, and I'm sure you understood it. Either that, or you really like taking phrases out of context. In any case, your response seems to be mocking my argument, when in reality, you should know what I mean. I underlined the important part in the quote of what I said before above.

Yes, gives permission freely. Before you were arguing against that, no? If I've already proven it, then I presume you've dropped your previous argument?

And this is life. If you want to work for a society, make money, have a family that can live in a house with rights to a certain property, and know that measures are being taken to keep your family safe, expect a government.

You're free to go to some unknown area in Africa, with their own tribes, if you'd like. But you wouldn't do that for numerous reasons.

Already addressed this before.

And exactly, there are many currencies, and there are exchange rates. What are exchange rates influenced by? Surely the government is involved.

It's a good question, and it has been done. The thing is, considering human nature, people are greedy - the ones that have set up private enterprises charge much more than what the government charged us. Of course, that's to be expected, since we're not paying them tax rates on top of the electric bill. Most of us rely on generators!

Yes, but you didn't read my example clearly. I specifically italicized 'except myself'. The bully was initiating 'force' (very vague force) on my friends, not on me. I intervened and stopped him. The example still holds.

My question is simple. I'm asking if the action of killing is immoral. I'm not asking for an entire scenario, where 'killing' is one of the present actions. Much like how you said 'control' is immoral before, I'm asking the same question to another basic action - killing.

Also, would killing another human being for the defense (not self-defense) of others be okay?

Come on, this is a major fallacy, you should know that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

I never said governments are never aggressive with their citizens. But it's not something that happens all the time.

I was speaking about morality and immorality, not happiness/unhappiness.

I think you missed my point entirely here. Let's focus on the entire context - I tend to write multiple paragraphs for an entire point. What I was saying is that you have the right to object, but if your objection is poor, then you will not be waived of your 'punishment'. The objection to cut trees is poor because you're cutting them just for yourself - you don't like the way they look. The objection to kill fish is poor because it's already happened in history that if you fish too much, the fish population will die in a certain area, and that means no more fish for anyone.

No one owns either the trees or the fish, but there are cases where you're given the right to cut down trees or fish. You just have to justify yourself. It's all back to the point that the government can be pretty fair. If you give reasons like the ones I said above, then obviously the government will not hear you out.

Correct! Now take out 'the thief'. Is the sole basic action of shooting moral or immoral? The entire scenario of shooting a thief, in which other lives were saved, was not immoral - I've already said this numerous times.

Don't forget, I'm going all the way back to what you said - you said laws 'control' people, and control is innately immoral, and hence, it's impossible for laws to do anything moral. Also, you said that morality cannot be achieved by means of even the smallest immoral action. I do not agree with this. Imagine a mom who is a prostitute, and lies to her son, telling him that when she comes back late at night, she was just with her friends (not selling her body). Essentially, the mother is lying to the son about her job. Lying is innately an immoral action. However, she's trying not to traumatize her son by keeping him from figuring out that she's a prostitute, so, for me, the entire scenario is majorly moral.

Not necessarily violence - you love to bring that gun scenario! But you cannot always refer to extreme examples, as that's cherry picking your evidence. Now let's see what I was saying: it's about using immoral means to achieve a moral action. Nothing about a desirable outcome here. Just look at the example of the prostitute mother lying to her son about her job above. Was that not moral? She used immoral means (lying) to achieve a moral outcome for the entire scenario. The outcome being desirable is irrelevant.

As you said, violence is only needed when things become too defiant, and a form of self-defense is needed. Sure you can nitpick a few laws which probably don't follow this - I never said the law was 100% moral for me. But again, I believe the majority of laws are moral.

Nope, we have to look at things qualitatively here. If his outcome is that he will die if he was kicked out, then that would weigh things the opposite way around. Also, he's forcefully being kicked out, and hence, forcefully being sentenced to his death, so the master can be seen as a killer, something that's normally extremely immoral. Also, we have to know what commands the master may give to the slave. Finally, you're missing a point - those things are THROWN onto the slave, not offered as a service. It's not necessarily his choice to get an education. In the real world, you're not forced to go to school, you only do it based on your needs. Now with taxes - it may not be our choice, but we can leave to an area with better tax rates, or, for me, none at all. In your case, he doesn't choose to leave the master's house, he's forced to - and even if he does leave voluntarily, he dies. So he's essentially doomed if he's looking for improvement. It really weighs out to be majorly immoral for me.

And, we're cherry picking evidence again. Masters don't normally treat their slaves well. At least, in the connotation of slavery as we understand it. But of course, we think slavery is so bad based on that connotation - might as well stick to it, rather than getting the best of both worlds (having the derogatory public perception of slavery, but using examples of slavery that would be more publicly accepted).

Where did I say I wasn't giving a conclusion? I said I wasn't giving a definite conclusion. Definite. A conclusion that I believe to be 100% true for all cases. Absolute. Very general. That's not the case.

I have a hard time believing this because I said 'in the sense that you're trying to elicit'. If you really do, then slavery must not be as bad as I thought it was.

And your freedoms are greater than a cow's freedoms, in qualitative and quantitative levels. It's not a good example.

Okay, and what about from 5-10?

I'm arguing in the sense of understanding. If we're going to use the term 'slavery' freely, then lots of things can be seen as slavery in a sense. Even the normal conditions of parenthood: a child being born into a family that feeds him/her, sends him/her to school, provides shelter, and whatnot - the fact that the child has to listen to orders from the parents (such as curfews), and finally, if this child were to leave the family, he/she would most likely die, or suffer. Doesn't this sound extremely familiar to you - it's something you said!

"Well, sure it can on a micro level. Guy is born into a slave household, he gets educated, fed, shelter, etc, so long as he does x on command. If the master kicks him out, it's likely that he will die, especially if he's young."

You were describing slavery. So, as you can see, parenthood can appear to look like slavery as well. And that's where I brought the whole debate of connotations of the word. If you say the government makes us slaves, I would probably agree with you (already have), in a sense. But definitely not in the negative connotation of slavery that is publicly thought of when the term is brought up.

I know, I know, I know! Come on, your examples are irrelevant to what I said! It is a big one, but look at what you used it to dismiss - I told you that by killing the thief, we'd be going against his will, but not against many other peoples' wills. In this case, the people are correct. You simply dismissed what I said by saying 'fallacy'.

You're focusing on fallacies too much, but throwing them in inappropriate places. I said way before that fallacies are for absolution - as in, when I'm generally trying to say something that's 100% correct - not in a specific instance. Imagine I said this: The will of the majority is always morally correct, and hence, any relevant action must be done based on this will. If you told me 'fallacy' there, then you'd be right, I was wrong! But I didn't say that. I gave you a specific instance, and I'm not generalizing with this instance. I'm using it as a counter-example for a very general and absolute statement you said - that moral actions cannot be done through immoral means.

Okay, good point, but now look at the example of the prostitute mother, lying to her son about her job. Please, try to follow the argument to its roots! I'm debating against the claim that moral actions cannot be performed through immoral means.

Also, sorry, I was using the definition of autonomous to be 'self-governing'. I assumed you meant as in, the effects of one person's will should only affect himself/herself. I will still stick with this definition, as it fits into the preface statement you gave earlier.

We're relating to morals here, not on existence (I said that that example was irrelevant). Now tell me - are morals 100% objective? I think not.

Morality is not subject to the law of the excluded middle. It is not 100% objective. The analogy fits morality more than yours does. The existence of God is purely objective - whether something is good or bad is subjective.

Yup. Policemen: "Drop the gun now, or we'll shoot!"

If you're saying you'd get shot if you don't pay taxes, you're over-dramatizing.

The social contract is a theory. It is an idea. I already explained this. You said it yourself before me - it exists as an abstraction. That's how it was meant to exist in the first place. I already told you that it's not a tangible contract, but that it has a very inconvenient name for this debate. Existing as an abstraction DOES NOT mean its 'rules' cannot be applied.

It is. If you're willing to work for said fruits of labor, then EXPECT to give some of them up. After all, who gave you the opportunity to even have the right to work in your country and earn these fruits of labor in the first place?

If you agree to work, you agree to paying taxes. Don't want to pay taxes? Don't work. It's simple. To say it's now against your will is hypocritical. Taking this more into real life, if you have a social security number, and you're actually using it, expect to pay taxes.

A point is being missed though - you're using things that have many conditions which imply that you should be expected to pay taxes. Yet, you still use them, and don't want to pay taxes.

I disagree with all 3 of those points. As I said before, for 1 and 2, you're not forced into anything (you don't have to work, have property, etc.) - worst case scenario, you can leave if you want more 'options', but you don't, because of your own needs. For 3, that's subjective.

Okay, now I see why you were calling me a utilitarian before. Compared to this, I really do feel like one.

I wouldn't mind having private services in a free market - I kind of live in a place where there this is a reality! But I admitted before, I left America for greedy, egoistic reasons.

However, I do not agree with this form of social liberty (and this is where I believe the bulk of the majorly moral laws exist to suppress aspects of it). Why? Two reasons - the happiness factor, and, for me, it'd be a less moral society (note that there's no mention of the government here). I said before that autonomous wills (when we take the 'self-governing' definition of autonomous) are scarce. Most actions, in one way or another, affect the people around you. When older brother Timmy buys a prostitute, and brings her home, it'd make me (and the rest of the family) sad, and we'd view Timmy differently. If I'm walking with younger brother Joey, and he asks me to stop at a store which says "Drugs R Us", it'd make me sad. Heck, even seeing kids walk into that store, thinking to myself 'wow, look at the wasted lives' would make me sad. It just really doesn't feel like an ideal society to me. If you don't think so, okay, but that's really just subjective.

Also, as you can tell, I do not agree with the legalization of drugs or prostitution, as I see both acts as immoral. Even if it's someone else performing these acts, I still believe it's immoral. Much like how I believe it's immoral for one to damage his/her body with acid (suicide). Before, I said I wouldn't force anyone to stop doing said actions, but I never said that meant I would change my viewpoint on the action. It's still immoral to me, even if you have the right to do it.

Now, you may tell me that education will increase. That drug use may decrease. That prostitution may decrease. I disagree. I believe (more for the latter two), that biological factors play a big role in any decisions made for the corresponding situation. We're all born different. Some people are born with a higher potential to be smart than others, and may have a greater affinity towards education than others. Same in regards to drugs. If drugs were legal for Jack, he'd most likely use them less since he's of the rebel type and likes to try 'forbidden' things with his friends. But this doesn't mean the same would happen for physically dependent, drug addict Matthew (I'm running out of names). Finally, it's the same for prostitution. Your body naturally produces lots of testosterone, yet you're not very attractive/charming, so you can't get any real girls to sleep with. How do you vent? Prostitutes.

If they were to increase, then the many bad things associated with them and how they affect the personality of a person (aggressiveness, masculinity, and whatnot) may increase. Now, let's take a vague leap, and say that they can make people more 'mean'. Indirectly, that would be affecting others - affecting their happiness - in social interactions.

For me, I believe that the government, although it could be a bit better, does an excellent job of dealing with what it already has - real humans. It has some quirks, but majorly, for me, I believe we need it. It provides a good amount of happiness to its people, and, after all, I believe we are most productive when we are happy. Some of the actions the government does may be wrong (already gave an example before), but in the end, I believe most of them are majorly moral.

You're basing what is moral on that one statement you gave before as a preface. I would not use that statement as a basis for what is moral and what is not as I believe using drugs and prostitution are immoral (in most cases), yet they conform to your statement. Unless you're willing to say that this new society is not really as moral as we think it is, and some rights are given not based on morality?

I think you have lots of hope in regards to each individual of the human race. Whilst it would be nice to have more stability, and less governmental control for this stability, I do not think it's possible with real humans.

Nope, it was great, and interesting as well.

Look, in the end, it seems we have conflicting opinions about the government. I doubt we'd ever convince each other to change our subjective views! But don't forget, we were essentially talking about if the law was moral, or immoral, not on how we can make the law even more moral, or if we need it or not.

You said it was immoral because innately, it controls people, and 'control' is an immoral action. This was because you believed that moral actions cannot be achieved through immoral means.

Most of my argument is against that paragraph above, which contains a very general conclusion, so one counter-example is sufficient to disprove it. I gave many examples - the latest being the mother who is a prostitute, but lies to her son about her job. I talked about weighing things out (and attempted to refute the law of the excluded middle, as morality is not really objective). I spoke about the differences between a singular law, all the laws, a single moral/immoral action, and an entire scenario. I argued that the law is majorly moral.

I should really get some sort of trophy for making posts these long. Getting one post added to my post count is not justified!

 

I hear your cry... I can't give you a trophy, but here:


All joking aside I've been reading along both yours and malakadang's posts and you've both bought up some very valid points Thanks for taking part in the discussion!

 

Yes, thank you Ashaxx! It is beyond me where you guys find the perfect pictures for such situations

 

You're forced to register, are you not?

No, you said slaves don't really get benefits. I'm saying that they do. Now, obviously a citizen gets more benefits than slaves by virtue of the fact that they enjoy more economic and social freedoms. Slaves in rome had less freedom than citizens, but more freedoms than slaves in egypt, funnily enough, they were also more productive in rome.

I also had a video, it explains the difference. Slavery in egypt is not the same as slavery in rome. You still however can use the word slave. I contest, that modern day slavery, though obviously nothing like bygone slavery, can still be labelled slavery.

No. You need permission to leave. If you don't get that permission, you can't leave. The same is said for slavery.

You're right, I am lucky to be born in Australia. Rights to work? Every human has the right to sell their labour. Right to own land? Every human has property rights. The only thing I inherited was the wonderful culture Australia has, and the obvious standard of living derived from businesses.

Of course I would. But, the problem is this, I'm moving from a big shit hole to a smaller shit hole. I don't want to live in a shit hole. Now if the culture of Australia was shit, I'd probably leave if I had the financial ability to. Remember, I'm not saying you can't have a bad life as a slave (Citizen of a country). It just depends in how totalitarian your master (Government) is.

That's an equivocation fallacy, and you know it =,=

Or person X could trade his radio and PS3 for person Y's TV? The only problem with fiat currency is that it can be printed, the primary cause of inflation. I have no problem with an currency that is widely used, in fact, that's probably would happen due to, as you've stated, it would simplify things. The US has screwed it's currency over though by counterfeiting it. It doesn't take anyone with an economics degree to figure out that if you duplicate a commodity, it's value WILL decrease.

Currency can come to be without a government though.

What if Julia needed to eat cookies? Imagine a government put regulation on selling water. No one but the government could sell water because of x, y, and z. Humans need to drink water. Just because you drink the governments water that only it can produce, does not mean you are in support of the policy, or government in general.

You can voluntarily boycott Nike. You cannot voluntarily boycott the government. Fact: You have the natural right to sell your own labour. Fact: If you sell your own labour and do not want to pay taxes, you will be shot (Eventually).

I don't see why people are against trade. That is all that is actually happening.

If everyone was happy, then initiation of force did not occur. Initiation of force only occurs when there is (a) an initiator, the thief, and (b) the person who does not voluntarily consent to the initiation of force. If everyone's happy, then the initiation of force has not occurred.

So, we should be looking to overturn the immorality in the system? Look. Slavery is immoral, we know that. If you enslave someone, and give them many benefits, it could be 'majorly moral', BUT what if the slave doesn't consent. The slave protests, and the master says, uh, social contract, you've taken my services, you can leave if you want. The slave tries to leave, but needs the masters permission.

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/travel/

How would the poor do this, they have the same natural rights as the rich? Now, it's not like I don't have a right to be on the land I'm standing on, providing I'm not trespassing. If I'm living in my house, why should I be forced to pay tax? Do I not own it?

There is extensive jurisprudence as to what constitutes a criminal.

If you murder, rape, steal, you should be punished, societies sanctions jail as a punishment (Although I can think of better ways that would require a restructuring of society, let's go with jail). They are in jail because they initiated force, especially since it was a drastic initiation of force (unlike pinching someone). But what about victimless crimes?

It's the principle involved, that the government still requires permission.

Selling your labour is a natural right. Making money is a byproduct of your natural right. Having a family is consensual sex, and living together consensually. You are able to take measures to keep your family safe, although most of them are illegal. Why is government necessary when all these things can be done voluntarily? Remember, police really only respond to crimes, they don't do a stellar job in preventing them, that's where home protection comes in, although that's illegal...

"One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do.""

I don't want the government intervening in the free market. The fact that they doesn't mean I consent to it; I'm powerless to stop it. People have made brilliant arguments for the free market, see Ludwig Von Mises, but the government doesn't seem to listen. There are poor people on the streets, dumb people coming out of school, druggies in a corner, criminals in prison. The root cause of most of this is a lack of education, and I'm sorry, but the Prussian education system DOES NOT WORK.

Well, clearly private enterprise must be able to make a profit, otherwise they would run at a loss. I'd imagine that more companies would pop up, which would increase competition, quality of services, and decrease prices over time. Unless of course the Government has operated well below the market price, distorting the equilibrium.

Defense of others, it still stands.

I don't think killing is innately immoral; I reject intrinsic value. It depends on the context. I would say control is immoral, and by control, I mean coercion. Now, not that control or coercion is inherently immoral, it just so happens that coercion presupposes an immorality, so it functions as if its always immoral.

If person x was initiating force on your friend, let's say threaten him with a gun. I'd imagine that you'd have the right to shoot him.

The government can only exist because of force. It is constantly initiating force on its citizens, as you have already acknowledged in the laws. Whether or not it is justified because it is 'majorly moral', the government still initiates force. Police Brutality is just the quickest way to demonstrate that, because that form of initiation of force is not hegemonic (taken as second nature) to us (yet).

I think the above answers this.

Isn't that typically how utilitarians base their morality on?

Hang on, how can you be given the right to do x to something you don't even own? In my opinion, the reason for this 'environmental unsustainability' is because no one owns the environment. Unlike minerals which are finite and unreplenishable, trees and fish are. It is the solution to the tragedy of the commons; it is a free-market solution, as opposed to an interventionist solution.

Think of it like this. An average businessman, let's say he now owns x land which contains 1 million fish. Do you think he will fish it all, or ensure he can make a sustainable profit overtime by not over fishing? There will be some that the former, and some the latter. In a free market solution, I'll speculate, that rich environmentalists will say no, look, you can make 5 million dollar profit it you fish it all, here's 6 million dollars, I'll buy the land.

I agree that it was not immoral, I reject your reasoning for it. Also, I don't believe killing itself is inherently immoral, self-defense is justifiable, and I'm sure you would agree.

I have a solution to end poverty, to reduce crime, to increase GDP per capita, to reduce unemployment and so on. Kill everyone who is in poverty. Kill all criminals (since they usually re offend). Killing the populace will increase gdp per capita naturally, and reduce unemployment (though only marginally). Now, what If I could argue that such a situation is 'majorly moral'. Remember, you face a utilitarian calculation problem when you weigh things up with the