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

[Ashaxx]

Apparently they are trying to make it legal to help family members with assisted suicide now. It was on BBC news or ITV news about 2 days ago. From the glances I took at the TV and the occasional time I listened it sounds promising.

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 :/

 

[malakadang]

Malakadang, if you want, read the following:
http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

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.

Of course. They don't accept, there's nothing I can do about it. But there's no problem with me giving them my opinion.



Correct.

We're on the same page.

We're talking about suicide here. There's no need to give a right to commit suicide, because the effects of suicide are you're dead. No laws required, because there is no way you can punish the person after they break the law and commit suicide. Any laws that are made against suicide are just to hope to prevent it, but in the end, it cannot be enforced, so it's not really a 'law', more like a guideline. Euthanasia is a different case, and I'm NOT arguing against euthanasia.

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.

Okay, essentially what I'm arguing for in the suicide debate. I'm arguing against this passive statement "it's their life, they can do whatever they want". If we stick around with that mentality, there's no reason to even offer help.

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

But it's implied. By calling attention to me, it's suggesting that you're opening a debate with me. Of course you're not grabbing me by the hair and placing me at the keyboard, forcing me to debate. But you're still eliciting an argument.

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

You're missing the point. Taxation money is used to offer us services provided by the state, something offered to us in a somewhat social contract.

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.

You should expect to pay taxes with your citizenship, your social security number, etc.

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.

You should also expect to pay taxes if you're living in America, and benefiting from its governmental services. You should expect to pay taxes if you're willing to use the currency the government offered to you - the US dollar.

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.

They've essentially given you the concept of the type of money that you're using (and arguing for) in the first place.

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

So, you've virtually agreed to paying taxes already. If you don't like it, you're free to give up all of these things and leave the country to someplace like where I live (and they speak English here, too). I essentially left America because I didn't want to pay around 40% taxes for my income. And I admit, what I did was greedy and egoistic.

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.

In the case with a thief, I don't have any form of agreement with said thief stealing my money, and then using it to do moral deeds.

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?

1. It shouldn't be against your will - social contract. Also, check the second link I gave above. Even if it is, it doesn't mean laws are absolutely immoral. This is further emphasized below.

I'll deal with the social contact later.

2. There are countries without governments (although you probably wouldn't want to live in such countries, proving further why governments are needed), and there are some with governmental systems that you may prefer, such as Canada.

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

3. You're free to leave. I'm not forcing you. You can stay in America, drop your social security number, not work if you'd like, and live on the streets. Of course, you wouldn't do that, because you need help from the government, and you need to work. You're essentially forcing things on yourself based on your own needs.

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.

Fallacy does not imply falsehood, especially in the real world. What I said may still be correct for the specific instance, but fallacies deal with all instances, so what I said is not correct absolutely. However, for the case I gave, it IS correct - no government (there is a government, actually, but they don't really do much for the country, and we don't do much for them) led to all of those negative things I listed. Care to debate why not, rather than pointing to a fallacy?

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?

Now, to say that what happened in my country is surely what would happen to America if 'no government' existed is fallacious, but it does give a pretty good prediction/indication of what COULD happen.

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

Again, social contract.

Will deal with this later.

It's not. I gave this example to 'kill dank'.

"You have this mentality that moral actions cannot be performed through immoral means, and this is utterly incorrect. I'll give you a simple example - shooting is an immoral action, because it can kill another human being. So obviously, when a thief shoots some bystander at the bank, he's doing an immoral action. But when another bystander shoots the thief, he's doing a MORAL action, through IMMORAL means (killing). He's essentially protecting everyone else in the bank, and hence, saving other lives. Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?"

If you want, EVERYTHING can be viewed as immoral (much like the 'there are no selfless deeds' debate). However, you have to weigh things out for the greater good.

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

Sometimes involuntarily is necessary. With the bank scenario I gave above, if I told the thief 'please, you have the choice to drop the gun, and not kill any of us', he/she would just laugh. You need force to stop such a person in this case. And while 'force' may sound immoral, it's performing an extremely moral action, and hence, is contributing to the greater good. Weighing things out, this mode of force can be concluded to be majorly moral.

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.

I didn't say laws didn't do this. You're taking sentences out of context. I did say later that majorly, laws perform moral actions, but they could also perform immoral actions as well. You're committing the either/or fallacy - you're assuming laws can either be moral, or immoral. This is not the case. You have to weigh things out.

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?

No, it's NOT stupid. Your other examples are completely irrelevant. I NEVER said that to control an immoral action, you must use the SAME immoral action against that person. If someone commits rape, you punish them by raping them? Of course not. But you send them the jail - something that is immoral, no? You're locking someone up from the world, away from their families, etc. But it's being done for the greater good - you're offering protection to the people, and hence, it's majorly moral.

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

Also, I never said the only way laws control negative actions are by killing. You're mixing things up. There could be fines, jail sentences, etc.

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.

You're still going on the basis that if moral deeds are performed through immoral means, then they cannot be considered moral. This is not necessarily true, as I've said before - something's not either immoral, or moral. That's a fallacy. It can be 80% moral, and 20% immoral (for example, I pay a million dollars to a cancer charity in hopes of being on the news), but in such a case, it is majorly moral, so there shouldn't be a huge problem with it.

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.

True, it is a fallacy. Let me rephrase: It can, in fact, be majorly moral, since it provides protection to other people.

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.

See, fallacies sometimes give problems in arguments, since it looks for absolution. But debunking absolution does not imply that specific instances cannot occur.

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

You're right. But again, counter examples don't imply absolution - if you find a few counter examples, it doesn't mean affecting lives positively can't also be moral. We all know that. My argument here is that laws generally do affect lives positively.

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.

See, this is where you have it wrong. Here I'm starting to get more specific with my argument. Your counter examples before do not negate my argument completely. As I've said earlier, you have to weigh things out. For example, talking a thief out of shooting at the bank would be extremely moral, as you're essentially trying to use sound reasoning to provide protection to the people. But face it, that most likely will not work - so you shoot the thief instead. Yes, shooting is immoral, but weighing things out, it's doing more things for the greater good than for the bad, and hence, the entire action is majorly moral.

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'.

Majorly moral, and should be moral. Big difference. Fallacies only apply for absolution and conclusive reasoning.

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

There is somewhat - a social contract. Once again, if you feel like a slave, you can leave. But many of us do not feel like slaves in the sense that you're trying to elicit. The government provides more good than harm. In slavery (as we think of it), this is not the case - the people would be abused, starved, fatigued, tortured, etc. Slavery has many connotations, some worse than others.

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

[YOUTUBE]Xbp6umQT58A=[/YOUTUBE]

But if you're going to be really literal with the word 'slave', then we're slaves to our parents (and involuntarily) - but hey, it's not so bad. I mean, they provided more good than bad for us, right? They gave us food, sent us to school, etc. So slavery in this sense doesn't sound as bad as the connotation you're trying to elicit.

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.

Yes, I already addressed parts of this in my previous post by saying the law does both moral and immoral actions. There are laws that may be against a person's will, but there are also laws that benefit people, so again, we have to weigh things out. Taking the thief example once more, the thief's will is that he wants to steal money and kill people at the bank. By killing the thief, sending him to prison, etc. the law would essentially be going against the thief's will (which is, according to you, immoral, as we're attempting to force the thief to do something against his will), but not against many other peoples' wills. So, we're back to weighing out if the law majorly supports peoples' wills, or doesn't. I'm arguing that it does.

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

So if Billy wants to kill hundreds of people at a mall, and I tell him not to, and end up shooting him at the mall to protect the other people, I'm doing something wrong? After all, I am going against Billy's will.

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.

It's interesting, but overly exaggerated for me, and I don't agree with some points, like taxation is theft, and that violence is necessarily absolutely wrong. Again, it's the either/or fallacy - we're assuming that either something is moral, or immoral. But in reality, you have to weigh things out.

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.

I mean, come on, governments prevent citizens from having weapons, but have monstrous weapons at the hand of the state? It's not like the government is going on the streets, shooting their people. They have those weapons in case of war - in case its citizens are in danger. It's doing this to ensure protection of its citizens. The government's weapons are essentially for the greater good of the country.

Here's a video:

[YOUTUBE]4RrkaYuXH6U[/YOUTUBE]

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.

 

[Snoopchicken]

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.

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.

Okay.

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

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.

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.

Sentence was taken out of context.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I can't see the 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's a video:

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.

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.

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!

 

[malakadang]

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

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.

Alright.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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'?

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.

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.

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.

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 hypocrite.

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.

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.

Which form of utilitarian/consequentialist are you?

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

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

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

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.

Passport.

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.

Does this include smoking?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Insert Police Brutality video]

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!

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

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

Right, but you don't initiate force.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

I think I clarified what I meant.

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.

Shooting the thief was not immoral.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I can't see the video?

[YOUTUBE]3IRbwpc2XV4[/YOUTUBE]

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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:
[YOUTUBE]tTOxelKRBGI[/YOUTUBE]

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.

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.

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

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?

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%.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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'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.

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!

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.

 

[Snoopchicken]

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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'.

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.

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.

Which form of utilitarian/consequentialist are you?

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?

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

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.

Passport.

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.

Does this include smoking?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

[Insert Police Brutality video]

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.

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

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

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 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.

Shooting the thief was not immoral.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

 

[Ashaxx]

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!

 

[Snoopchicken]

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

 

[malakadang]

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 forced to register, are you not?

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

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.

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'.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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).

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.

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

Currency can come to be without a government though.

t'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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

"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."

There is extensive jurisprudence as to what constitutes a criminal.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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...

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.

"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.""

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Defense of others, it still stands.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I think the above answers this.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 consequences, you are also faced with the problem that you don't know what those consequences might be. On the presupposition that such a thing was majorly moral, would you accept it?

You need to come up with 2 things:

1: Saying something is majorly moral implies some sort of quantitative calculation. Majorly implies x > y. If it is a qualitative calculation, then your morality is purely subjective down to the grass roots, and is unhelpful. If I calculate something to be majorly moral, and you calculate something to be majorly immoral, we have a problem. To make matters worse, you're calculating things by guessing! You are not omniscient, you do not know the future, and it's free hard to predict the future of the actions by 7 billion humans with free-will.

Statements are either true or untrue, valid or invalid, logical or illogical. If you show a mathematic proof to your professor, he will NEVER say that eh, you are 'majorly right'. He will either say you are wrong, or, you are right up to hear, but here is were you are going wrong. To then however continue to apply your proof because it was 'majorly right' is ridiculous It's wrong! Even if 99% of it is right, it's wrong!

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.

Lying is not immoral, neither is it moral. Here we need to be careful. To be factual, lying is merely non-moral, not necessarily immoral. Also, the gun scenario holds true. Disagree long enough with the government, and they will use force against you, to subdue, or incarcerate you. That force, is typically a gun.

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.

They only operate under the initiation of force. How can you enforce the laws without force if people don't agree to them? If people agree with the laws great, no force is required. If people don't agree with the rules, then you either let them break it, or you force them to obey. This is the fundamental problem with democracy. It's a tyranny of the majority, it discriminates against the minority. The smallest minority there is, is the individual. It's that one person that stands out from the crowd, that one person that does not conform. You would force him to obey, where I would not.

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.

If you are violating my property rights by trespassing, I have every right to ask you to leave. The fact that a slave is involved makes the situation unique, but it doesn't detract from the fact that the master can prevent trespassers.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#Current_status_by_country

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.

Addressed.

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.

You wish to force the master to keep the slave? Shit, slave of a slave!

So he's essentially doomed if he's looking for improvement. It really weighs out to be majorly immoral for me.

How is this not different from asking people to leave their country. They're doomed if they leave they're country unless they're rich, and the government prevents people form being rich by taxing them, not only by the progressive tax system, but by land tax, tariffs, GST, etc.

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 some do. You should watch that 13 minutes video, it tackles this issue very well.

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).

The draft is a modern example of slavery.

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.

k.

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.

The 13 minutes video will elucidate this well. Remember, slavery is an unsalvageable word due to the connotation of bygone Egyptian slavery people associate it with. Many people don't know what the word serfdom is, yet it is still a form of slavery, and it is better than the Egyptian style of slavery.

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

So, the more freedoms the better?

Okay, and what about from 5-10?

Kids typically want to stay with their parents. The government sometimes kidnaps kids that want to stay with their parents because the government deems them 'unfit'. Besides, this really isn't an issue, cases were parents abandoning their kids are somewhat rare, and the opposite can be held true. If this were the case, the kid would eventually go into a foster home, or so on. It really wouldn't be in the self-interest of either to abandon each other. First, the kids turmoil is axiomatic, so I won't bother. Second, the parents actions would get around in the community, and they would be shunned, which would affect their quality of life drastically.

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!

Some parents are basically enslaving their children; we call this child abuse. I think you will find this very interesting (as well as the other parts); this is less politics, and more empirical evidence:
[YOUTUBE]gbiq2-ukfhM[/YOUTUBE]

"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.

It's only really slavery when it's child abuse. There are some, I'm an example, that consented to more or less my parents did. Sure, I disagreed with my parents (I actually almost never got grounded), but my parents never initiated force on me. They never hit me.

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'.

Self-defense, defense of others. It's fine, I think I already clarified what I meant when I said 'against his will'.

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.

You are arguing that morality is based on consequences, something that I oppose. If you steal from the rich, and give to the poor (redistribution of wealth), it is immoral!!! Despite the benefits of the poor, you have stolen, you have initiated force. Morality deals with actions, not the consequences. Looking at morality like this, you face the problems I've mentioned earliers. If you want to say

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.

You really think that the ends justify the 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.

It's probably my fault haha.

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.

I like the phrase that morality is as objective as nutrition. Just think about it for a minute.

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.

If morality is subjective, then we can both be right simultaneously.

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

Gang: "Drop the gun now, or we'll shoot!". There is no functional difference, one person has the legal right to initiate force, and the other does not. (I'm assuming that this is not self-defense/defense of others.

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

Don't pay taxes, you get letters. Ignore those letters, police men come over. Ignore that, you get arrested. Resist arrest with the proportional amount of force their exerting onto you, you will get shot.

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.

Alright, so, Fact: The social contract does not exist. By your own admission. Fact: The social contract is not a legal contract.

If it doesn't exist, and it's not part of the law, why should I be governed by it?

Also, you're arguing that the social contract legitimizes the laws imposed on us by the government to govern us? But does it legitimize all laws? If the answer is no, it doesn't allow all laws, then we must carefully inspect the laws we deem are illegitimate. The purpose of government was to protect our liberties, NOT feed the poor, or tell people how to live. I fail to see how making x, y, and z illegal preserves our liberties. Courts were initially designed to resolve disputes by enforcing law. If an interaction between 2 people is voluntary, what dispute is there to resolve, see prostitution. The Courts are just enforcing the law, and abandoning their primary purpose, a way of resolving disputes. No liberties are being violated, when prostitution occurs, and it is arguable whether it is immoral. However, to say that because of a contract that is neither legal, or exists, that two people who mutually consent to enter into a morally ambiguous action should be punished by being thrown in a state sanctioned rape dungeon (prison) is bizarre. Might as well throw people in jail for believing on Communism because the theory manifests into practice again there will be chaos, as there was last time.

We also have to talk in concretes. The government is just composed of people. Let's look at the elements of a social contract. It occurs within a geographical area, hence there are different countries. Let's make a geographical area up, my house, and the land I have on it. It is unilateral insofar that citizens of the government must obey the rules. So, within my land, I have certain rules (or laws), and they have punishments. The other one is that it is implied, there is no contractual agreement, legal or otherwise, it doesn't even exist as a concrete, it's just implied based on my actions. That is what the elements of a social contract are (As far as I know). Now, you keep using the 'love it or leave it argument'. If I'm in country x (Geographical location), and using it's services, then I've implied by consent (implied consent), to follow it's rules (unilateral). Let's break that down. If you're on my land (Geographical location), and using my services (perhaps I have a lake, and you're drinking from it because you're thirsty; you were hiking), that implies your consent to the rules/laws of my land because you are using my services (implied consent), and this occurs unilaterally (my rules, my land). Problem?

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?

O no. It's a natural right, look what happened in Somalia when government collapsed. Did they all stop working? No, of course not. You own your body. Why can't you sell your time and labour? If you can't sell what you own, then you have a morphed definition of property rights.

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.

That's just ridiculous, selling your labour is a natural right.

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.

Conditions, where? Show me a legally binding contract. If the government doesn't want me using it's services, it can order me not to use it.

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.

Who owns my body? Me. Who owns the effects of the actions of my body? The Government. That is what you are arguing. I've addressed the last one above (way above by the looks of it).

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.

The free market is fantastic, high quality services at a low price.

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.

There would be disincentives for people to do socially unacceptable behaviour for that very reason. Remember, just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will do it. Holding all else equal, will increasing the supply of something increase consumption? Probably. But If you watch that long video above, you will see what the true cause of most of the evil in society. Furthermore, education plays a fundamental role in... educating people not to do stupid things, such as do drugs.

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.

This is the difference between politics, and morality. You can disagree with what someone is doing, but you can still fight for their right, or ability to do it under the law. Again, the freedom of speech quote, I may not like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. Arguably, most people say things that I disagree with. I would never advocate freedom of speech to be abolished though.

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.

You know what, I absolutely agree with you, but you are omitting one key variable. Nurture. The environment, and our socialization plays a drastic impact. Don't believe me? How much has our genetics changed in the past 20 generations? How much have our actions?

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.

It's down to 2 things. The primary agent of socialization (The family), and the secondary agent of socialization (the education system). We can help both through the latter. A free market will increase the quality of education, people will be smarter, they will know more, they will be more accepting (studies show this). These children go on to reproduce, and they will socialize their kids. It starts with education.

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.

Wait a while (30, 40, 50 years). Times will change, just wait.

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.

P1: Human action is purposeful, and based on our needs and wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_axiom).

P2: Peoples actions in the market determine what is produced (consumer sovereignty)

C1: Therefore, a market (laissez-faire capitalism), with a price mechanism, will only produce what people want based on their actions.

C2: Therefore laissez-faire capitalism is the most effective system to determine how resources are allocated.

This may not seem relevant, but it is. The government prevents a free-market, it prevents this system. A free-market brings all the effects I mentioned above. Surely, you can agree, that this is 'majorly moral'? Once the quality of education increases, it's affects will be seen in the next generation, where the family unit will be socialized with less child abuse, meaning less problems in the future (see the long video above). The government is really standing in the way of that.

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 just don't believe initiating force on people is a good thing. Even if it's done for good intentions, and good consequences. That's as simple as it is.

Incidentally, we never even defined government. Government: A group of people, with a monopoly of force, in a geographical area, which has the legal, and moral right to initiate force.

You'll probably disagree with this, but what is your definition of government? What's wrong with my definition? Hopefully, you'll see why I vehemently oppose government in general based on that definition (which I think most accurately depicts truly what government is).

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

You started it (the long posting), don't complain =,=

 

[Snoopchicken]

You're forced to register, are you not?

Only if you want to work. Don't argue by saying every human being has the right to sell their labor - more on that below.

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.

Wrong - you didn't trace the argument back to its roots. You said this, "Ok, how is this different from slavery." How is what different from slavery? A normal citizen, performing normal routines, in a society that is governed by a government. I told you, unlike a normal citizen, slaves don't really get benefits (not they absolutely do not). You cherry picked a case where they did, but in the end, the link I gave you said itself that they did not receive as many benefits as a normal Romanian citizen, going back to your first question: "Ok, how is this different from slavery."

Now you're agreeing they're different. Don't forget, parenthood can be defined as slavery as well. If we're slaves now, I don't mind it, and I doubt a lot of Americans mind it either.

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

If you're a normal citizen, you do not need permission to leave. You just act like you're on vacation, transfer your money to a private bank, and turn in your passport. Very simple. It's been done before. I actually did this without turning in my passport, because I left before I started working, so there were no final tax fees that I had to pay.

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.

Every human has the right to sell their labor - more on that soon.

Why does every human have property rights? If that's the case, a lot of mingling would occur between countries - the Mexicans would flood America, the Arabs would flood America, etc. To have property rights within your own country - yes, but why? I'm sure you know by now.

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.

Okay, look, you're not going to get exactly what you want. Let's say I want a billion dollars. I even work really hard for it, but in the end, I get 500 million. Should I still not be content? It's better than most people, and in the end, it does make me happy. Asking for happiness does not imply I'm a utilitarian. We all want to be happy.

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

Speaking sarcastically. Come on.

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.

How would Person Y determine trading his TV for a radio and a PS3 is a good deal?

You agree that having a common currency would make things easier. Such a thing needs to be controlled by a big party - like a government.

In any case, this is hypothetical - the currency already exists, you agree to using it, and you agree that it helps make transactions easier. The definition of 'service' includes to help others - so, the government can be seen as providing a service to its people. You were arguing against that initially, and what I wrote above was against your argument. Now you seem to be agreeing.

May I ask you why the US counterfeited its currency?

Currency can come to be without a government though.

Don't think so. Otherwise it'd be really hard to control. Using materials like gold, silver, etc. was dropped for an obvious reason. Having paper money needs serious control, or you know what could happen.

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.

I agree with that, but you keep making it seem like paying taxes is the absolute only thing you can do. Again, you can leave - you'd be surprised how many free markets exist in the middle east. We all speak English here - the news just focuses on the bad parts of the middle east to make it seem like we're underdeveloped. Fact of the matter is that many of us are making more money than any American could ever dream of. You can come if you'd like. You're not doomed to one decision. America doesn't force you to stay in its country.

Also, you're missing an important point - there are indications where I agree. For example, when I open a bank account, surely on the contract/terms and conditions it mentions something of interest tax? If I sign that contract/agree to the terms and conditions, that's it - I essentially agreed, so now it'd make me a hypocrite to object, and still use the service.

It's the same thing when I register my name under a business.

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).

That's not the entire scenario. You have the right to sell your own labor, but it's based on the conditions of the job you're working for. Of course, I can claim that I'm a good computer engineer, but if I don't meet the qualifications for Rockwell, they will not accept me. So, what's the condition that we're looking for? You're working for a business THAT HAS ALREADY REGISTERED ITSELF UNDER THE GOVERNMENT. The business is the legal property of the government, and they have already signed numerous contracts and agreed to numerous terms and conditions that prove this. Perhaps you should read more about how businesses come about (http://www.sba.gov/content/5-steps-registering-your-business). They need a Federal Tax ID, a State Tax ID, etc. These all relate to YOU paying taxes as well. When you register for a business (normally under contract), you're under them, and they've ALREADY AGREED to being under the government. You should know this, as all the information is available to you. You're telling me when you work for a business, you don't expect taxes to be taken from your income? Of course not. You essentially agree to paying the taxes when you agree to the terms and conditions of the business (normally done by contract), and work for them, yet still complain about the taxes. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Now, you walk up to a neighbor, mow his lawn, and get 20 bucks. Would the government take part of that money? Nope, unless you put it in the bank and get interest... essentially another governmental service that you agree to using when you open a bank account. It's in the terms and conditions when you open a bank account that you will be charged interest tax. Don't want to be charged? Don't agree to the terms and conditions.

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

I'm sorry, but some are against it. Just like how some people dislike Chick-fil-A now that they know its CEO is against homosexual marriage.

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.

The actions don't happen simultaneously. Initially, Bill Gates wouldn't be happy when he looks in his bank and sees he lost a billion dollars (this is logical). He would be like, "Shit, I've been robbed!" Later, when he turns on the news, and sees that his money was used by a thief to save a million cancer patients, he agrees, and is not sad anymore (in the hypothetical example).

There still is an initiator (the thief), and the person did not voluntarily consent to the thief taking his money.

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.

Thing is, the analogy is wrong. You can leave without the government's permission - a slave needs the master's permission. You use your passport, and get out, then you drop your citizenship. Again, it's been done before.

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

It essentially corroborates to what I said: "If you renounce your Australian citizenship while overseas you cannot re-enter Australia without a valid visa."

I didn't mean for you to drop the passport first, then leave. I mean, after you have left, you drop your passport, but then after that, you most likely will not be able to return to your country.

Now try obtaining a visa back to your country after you've dropped your citizenship to bypass taxes!

In any case, in the US, you can even drop your passport before you leave for the sole reason of dropping taxes, but they charge you one final time before you leave, if your income is really high (because it would be obvious why you're leaving). Of course, you can bypass that too (illegally). Doesn't matter by then, as you're leaving the country.

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?

This means nothing. The poor actually have a benefit - they can drop their passport 'legally' without really paying anything. The poor also are not normally the ones complaining about taxes, as they barely pay any of it anyways. Furthermore, the poor get many benefits (such as welfare), so they essentially get more than what they pay in taxes.

Also, when you buy a house, you sign a contract. I'm not sure if there is anything about property taxes in that contract though, but it's something to think about.

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?

Such as? Not paying taxes won't keep you from leaving the country.

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

You missed the point - we agreed the government gives permission freely. What does that mean, in context? The government gives you the freedom to leave whenever you want. Let's imagine now that we weren't given 'permission'. The statement becomes: you have the freedom to leave whenever you want. The outcome is the same. You can leave whenever you want. There's really no 'permission' needed, you can go without asking for anything.

"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.""

You're missing an important factor - it's not the entire society that's against the government. It's just you. If the entire society happened to be against the government, the government would be thrown out. It's happened before, and is actually happening now in parts of the middle east. But just because you're not happy, you don't have the right to make a decision for the entire population.

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.

I wouldn't mind a free market! I'm against social liberty, and that's something you want with the free market, though.

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.

Yeah, but it offered essentials at cheap prices - something you're trying to achieve with the free market?

Defense of others, it still stands.

It's not self-defense anymore though. Defense of others can be wrong. Take this for example - Russia is fighting with Germany. USA has absolutely no involvement in the fight, but Russia is slightly beating Germany, so USA attacks Russia, and hence, is 'defending' Germany. You think that's okay?

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.

With what you're saying (rejecting intrinsic value), you reject objective morals, and you accept that morality is based on its context (I used the word 'scenario' before) and that hence, it has elements of subjectivity. It drops a lot of your previous arguments.

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.

Okay. Now, what if it wasn't a friend, but an innocent bystander?

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).

Cool. Now, we've already rejected intrinsic values. Let's look at the word 'force' in its scenario now, as we have agreed that it is meaningless by itself. The government 'forces' people not to take drugs (without further reading, you would argue that this is immoral, as taking drugs is a personal decision, 'you own yourself', and there are no self-defense arguments here to justify forcing something against another person's will), because it can damage their bodies, and kill them. Now, after reading the entire scenario, would you judge it as majorly moral, or immoral?

You see where I'm coming at? Don't forget, a majority of my argument is against the claim that moral deeds cannot be achieved by immoral means. Do you still agree with what you said before?

I think the above answers this.

Aggressiveness =/= Immorality.

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

Assumption: I'm utilitarian. I never thought of myself as one. You're defining myself as one compared to yourself. I don't always think in a utilitarian sense. I'm sure prostitution would make lots of men happy, but I'm still against it.

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.

If I'm not mistaken, these things are owned by the government initially. Now, for the lake, if someone were to buy it, kill off all the fish, and the government objects, I would not agree. But I'm not sure if this is the case. I mean, surely you're allowed to cut down trees in your backyard, correct? Considering it is your own property, and the trees do belong to you. If you plant a tree in your backyard, and cut it off later, you shouldn't be punished.

Now why does the government initially have the land/lake? I suppose this is just a consequence of our founding fathers. We should be thankful that they're using the land/lake for good (making sure the fish don't go extinct so there's always a good supply for the people), rather than selling all the fish at once to earn profit for themselves.

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.

Yup, I do. But self-defense is a scenario, not a sole action.

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 consequences, you are also faced with the problem that you don't know what those consequences might be. On the presupposition that such a thing was majorly moral, would you accept it?

I would, but the thing is, it is not moral. Killing all the people in poverty is not a solution as you should weigh things out MORALLY, not by consequences. Again, I said this before, I'm not judging necessarily on happiness/unhappiness, I'm judging on what I believe is moral/immoral. I cannot presuppose it is moral if it obviously is not. And you cannot use the example against me if it already contradicts to your question.

1: Saying something is majorly moral implies some sort of quantitative calculation. Majorly implies x > y. If it is a qualitative calculation, then your morality is purely subjective down to the grass roots, and is unhelpful. If I calculate something to be majorly moral, and you calculate something to be majorly immoral, we have a problem. To make matters worse, you're calculating things by guessing! You are not omniscient, you do not know the future, and it's free hard to predict the future of the actions by 7 billion humans with free-will.

Statements are either true or untrue, valid or invalid, logical or illogical. If you show a mathematic proof to your professor, he will NEVER say that eh, you are 'majorly right'. He will either say you are wrong, or, you are right up to hear, but here is were you are going wrong. To then however continue to apply your proof because it was 'majorly right' is ridiculous It's wrong! Even if 99% of it is right, it's wrong!

Morality is subjective, never said it isn't. And there's no problem that it is. You say subjectivity is unhelpful? This is really easy to refute - do you believe sugar is sweet? That's subjective. Still, it's majorly sweet. According to what you said, the absolute statement that sugar is sweet is false. But we know in real life, that means absolutely nothing. According to you, for me to say that sugar is sweet means absolutely nothing.

Even with colors, they're based on our perception. I may say the sky is blue. You may too. So would Billy, Timmy, Joey, and all the other fictional characters I have made up in this debate. But Sean is color blind - he sees it as red. So, the color of the sky is subjective as well. But are you telling me it's complete nonsense to say the sky is blue?

You see how silly all of this sounds? Look, let's go back to the thief scenario. Let's say the thief was a good brother of sister Susie. Obviously when Johnny shoots the thief, Susie is going to object against Johnny because she believes what he did was immoral - he killed her brother! Yet really, the entire scenario was majorly moral. But that's the thing - morality is subjective. Sure, some people may not agree with your morals, but some are so obvious as sugar being sweet. In any case, both are still subjective.

Lying is not immoral, neither is it moral. Here we need to be careful. To be factual, lying is merely non-moral, not necessarily immoral. Also, the gun scenario holds true. Disagree long enough with the government, and they will use force against you, to subdue, or incarcerate you. That force, is typically a gun.

Okay, so you're rejecting intrinsic values? Above.

They only operate under the initiation of force. How can you enforce the laws without force if people don't agree to them? If people agree with the laws great, no force is required. If people don't agree with the rules, then you either let them break it, or you force them to obey. This is the fundamental problem with democracy. It's a tyranny of the majority, it discriminates against the minority. The smallest minority there is, is the individual. It's that one person that stands out from the crowd, that one person that does not conform. You would force him to obey, where I would not.

Force is not bad - in fact it's necessary. If someone says, "I object to the law of running out naked on the street," and runs out naked on the street, you would be fine with it? Or do you think some sort of force needs to be applied to stop him? You cannot use your 'self-defense' argument here as the person running naked on the street is not initiating force on anybody. But still, force is required to stop him. If you try to talk him out of it, I doubt he'd listen - I mean, he's already running naked on the street.

So we're back to looking at the context again. Saying the government uses force doesn't mean the government is immoral, as you tried to imply way before. It's about looking at the context, and weighing things out.

If you are violating my property rights by trespassing, I have every right to ask you to leave. The fact that a slave is involved makes the situation unique, but it doesn't detract from the fact that the master can prevent trespassers.

So you're allowed to use the rules that benefit you, and allowed to break the ones that don't? You think the government would allow a slave master to use the 'no trespassing' rule if he's already breaking a bigger rule - 'no slavery'? If anything, if this takes both people to court (it probably wouldn't as the master would hide this, but hypothetically), it would just get the master in trouble.

Now don't tell me, "Oh, so if I don't pay taxes, but I shoot someone on my lawn for self-defense, I will be punished?" Because in that case, you forgot to weigh things out. 'No slavery' >> 'No trespassing' (in terms of importance). The government does bend rules - it's all about fairness.

And historical governments are different from governments of the present day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...tus_by_country

You're allowed to ask to not go to school, provided you have a good reason. Again, we're dealing with fairness. If a slave begged for no education, the master would laugh, probably give him a few slaps, and force him into education.

Addressed.

Me too.

You wish to force the master to keep the slave? Shit, slave of a slave!

Was attacking what you said, and sentence was taken out of context.

How is this not different from asking people to leave their country. They're doomed if they leave they're country unless they're rich, and the government prevents people form being rich by taxing them, not only by the progressive tax system, but by land tax, tariffs, GST, etc.

The poorest people that cannot afford to leave are the ones that benefit the most from taxes. What they pay the government, they get back in an even larger quantity. I'm not sure about Australia, but I'm speaking of America.

And if a person is poor because of their own actions, I do not sympathize with them.

But some do. You should watch that 13 minutes video, it tackles this issue very well.

Exactly. Making an entire case based on little evidence.

The 13 minutes video will elucidate this well. Remember, slavery is an unsalvageable word due to the connotation of bygone Egyptian slavery people associate it with. Many people don't know what the word serfdom is, yet it is still a form of slavery, and it is better than the Egyptian style of slavery.

Yes, but the point is, if you grabbed a random citizen - actually, you grabbed Bill Gates, told him, "You're a slave for the US government," and you actually proved to him that in a sense, he is in fact a slave, he'd most likely reply with, "Well, I guess being a slave isn't so bad after all."

So, the more freedoms the better?

I'll repeat what I said.

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

It's all about weighing things out again.

Also, it's about how you achieved those freedoms. I mean, if I had the freedom of speech by killing everyone so no one could object to what I said, obviously that's not a freedom to be proud about.

Kids typically want to stay with their parents. The government sometimes kidnaps kids that want to stay with their parents because the government deems them 'unfit'. Besides, this really isn't an issue, cases were parents abandoning their kids are somewhat rare, and the opposite can be held true. If this were the case, the kid would eventually go into a foster home, or so on. It really wouldn't be in the self-interest of either to abandon each other. First, the kids turmoil is axiomatic, so I won't bother. Second, the parents actions would get around in the community, and they would be shunned, which would affect their quality of life drastically.

It can still happen. Sometimes kids runaway from their parents, and they die, because they cannot live out on their own. Even if it's rare, that's irrelevant. Some of your slavery examples are rare as well. I was making a point that in a sense, parenthood can be viewed as slavery - and it still can. A child could want to leave, and the parents will not send him/her out. Instead, the child is forced to runaway, where he/she would most likely die. It happens, we know that.

Some parents are basically enslaving their children; we call this child abuse. I think you will find this very interesting (as well as the other parts); this is less politics, and more empirical evidence:

I'll try to watch it - it's 18-19 minutes!

It's only really slavery when it's child abuse. There are some, I'm an example, that consented to more or less my parents did. Sure, I disagreed with my parents (I actually almost never got grounded), but my parents never initiated force on me. They never hit me.

According to the definition, not really. There was nothing about being harsh for it to be considered slavery. We know there are people who hate their parents just because they won't let them go out after 10. It's not necessary that the parents have to be molesting, beating, etc. the child for said child to want to leave.

Self-defense, defense of others. It's fine, I think I already clarified what I meant when I said 'against his will'.

Self-defense justifies the statement I said. Earlier, you were trying to use a fallacy to debunk it.

You are arguing that morality is based on consequences, something that I oppose. If you steal from the rich, and give to the poor (redistribution of wealth), it is immoral!!! Despite the benefits of the poor, you have stolen, you have initiated force. Morality deals with actions, not the consequences. Looking at morality like this, you face the problems I've mentioned earliers. If you want to say

Morality deals with both the actions and the consequences - I never said one or the other, hence why I used the word 'scenario', which generally means to encompass everything relevant. You even agreed to this. If the thief stole the money from Bill Gates, used it to treat a million cancer patients, and Bill Gates was fine with this, then you saw no problem. It's about the entire scenario, about the actions and the consequences, and weighing things out.

If you're not willing to even look at the consequences, then I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. If I spend a thousand dollars to treat a few cancer patients all so the hot nurse would think I was compassionate and have sex with me, you don't think that's wrong? There's something moral in there (trying to help the cancer patients), but the consequence is just me trying to coax the nurse into having sex with me. This is why we must ALWAYS weigh things out.

You really think that the ends justify the means?

'The ends justify the means' is an absolute statement. I do not agree with it always. But in some cases, it is correct. Example: If we kill the thief, he will not steal from the bank nor harm many lives. Protecting the people and the bank justifies killing the thief - essentially agreeing to the self-defense principle.

Your statement was absolute. You said that moral actions cannot be done through immoral means. I only need to find one example where this is not true to disprove the statement, and I have found many.

I like the phrase that morality is as objective as nutrition. Just think about it for a minute.

This deals with the wrong issue. Nutrition is needed for every human being to survive - this is a fact. No human can survive without nutrition. Find an example, and it's not so objective anymore. The type of nutrition that one prefers is irrelevant. Nutrition deals with needs, not wants.

Now morals are viewed differently everywhere. Some people view cannibalism as moral, and perform it routinely - sometimes to even family members in African tribes. Others don't view this as moral at all. Essentially, morality deals with values. Don't forget what the term 'value' means - it means what we think is either good or bad.

Now, you're saying morality is ESSENTIAL to humans, and I agree. Nutrition deals with needs; morality deals with values. But still, this gets us nowhere. I need values, okay, but how do I determine that a value is good, or a value is bad? Don't forget, we're not arguing on the existence of morality, or why we need it, we're arguing on what is good, and what is bad - what is moral, and what is immoral.

If morality is subjective, then we can both be right simultaneously.

Go the example that I gave above with the color blind person, and try to say this statement again to yourself.

Gang: "Drop the gun now, or we'll shoot!". There is no functional difference, one person has the legal right to initiate force, and the other does not. (I'm assuming that this is not self-defense/defense of others.

Irrelevant. You asked me if I believe that sometimes pointing a gun to force someone to do something is justified on certain occasions. Emphasis on 'certain'. I said yes, and gave you an example that you cannot argue with, because you know it's right - it is obviously pertaining to the self-defense principle. I never said anything about pointing a gun to force someone to do something being justified on all occasions. You're diverting from the initial argument at hand.

Don't pay taxes, you get letters. Ignore those letters, police men come over. Ignore that, you get arrested. Resist arrest with the proportional amount of force their exerting onto you, you will get shot.

It's definitely longer than it sounds. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were over-dramatizing. You said 'don't pay taxes, get shot'. That's like me describing my life as 'being born, then dying'. There are many things in-between.

Alright, so, Fact: The social contract does not exist. By your own admission. Fact: The social contract is not a legal contract.

If it doesn't exist, and it's not part of the law, why should I be governed by it?

What is this, the third time I've said it? Social contract is a theory - I really hate its name now! I wish it was called the 'expectation theory'. You're really taking its name too literally! The theory DOES exist, and its rules are normally applied in our everyday lives. I never said this was a TANGIBLE CONTRACT.

I said the social contract deals with expectations, then spoke about the point of hypocrisy. In any case, if you want something more tangible, read above. There are other indications besides the social contract which indicate you should expect to pay taxes, and yet you agree to them. No matter how vague they are, they exist.

O no. It's a natural right, look what happened in Somalia when government collapsed. Did they all stop working? No, of course not. You own your body. Why can't you sell your time and labour? If you can't sell what you own, then you have a morphed definition of property rights.

You understood me wrong. If you're willing to work for a business THAT'S REGISTERED UNDER THE GOVERNMENT, expect to pay taxes, as we know the registration process a business goes through. You put yourself under the business (normally by contract), and the business has ALREADY AGREED to making itself a property of the government, AND PAYING TAXES. The same thing applies to banks - you're explicitly told you'll be charged interest taxes, yet you still agree to registering for a bank account, put money into it, and then complain when taxes are being taken. That's hypocrisy. If you don't like to read the terms and conditions, then don't agree to them. It's very simple.

That's just ridiculous, selling your labour is a natural right.

Above. Also, I disagree with the government taking taxes from a job like mowing a lawn, as you're not working for any business. Now if you were to make a business out of this but not register it under the government, then that would be unfair to all the other business that have already registered under the government. And we know why businesses need to be registered under a government.

Conditions, where? Show me a legally binding contract. If the government doesn't want me using it's services, it can order me not to use it.

Again, above. They can be vague but they exist. I can find many more.

The free market is fantastic, high quality services at a low price.

I agree, but it appears the 'damage' is done.

There would be disincentives for people to do socially unacceptable behaviour for that very reason. Remember, just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone will do it. Holding all else equal, will increasing the supply of something increase consumption? Probably. But If you watch that long video above, you will see what the true cause of most of the evil in society. Furthermore, education plays a fundamental role in... educating people not to do stupid things, such as do drugs.

Yeah I know, but when it comes to real humans, I think chaos would occur.

This is the difference between politics, and morality. You can disagree with what someone is doing, but you can still fight for their right, or ability to do it under the law. Again, the freedom of speech quote, I may not like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. Arguably, most people say things that I disagree with. I would never advocate freedom of speech to be abolished though.

Yes, but I argued way before (probably in my first post) that some laws are made based on morality. You said self-defense is moral. The law that it's okay to shoot someone for self-defense was made as an exception to the law that you cannot kill anyone (bending the rules). You argued that laws cannot do anything moral, as they are innately immoral, which I made numerous points against.

This is essentially why I think prostitution and drugs should STILL be illegal (in America).

You know what, I absolutely agree with you, but you are omitting one key variable. Nurture. The environment, and our socialization plays a drastic impact. Don't believe me? How much has our genetics changed in the past 20 generations? How much have our actions?

Yes, but what's to say that nurture won't even further reinforce these actions? After all, they're more abundant now.

It's down to 2 things. The primary agent of socialization (The family), and the secondary agent of socialization (the education system). We can help both through the latter. A free market will increase the quality of education, people will be smarter, they will know more, they will be more accepting (studies show this). These children go on to reproduce, and they will socialize their kids. It starts with education.

Okay, but does this have to occur with pure social liberty?

Also, I have some concerns with this. Read below.

P1: Human action is purposeful, and based on our needs and wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_axiom).

P2: Peoples actions in the market determine what is produced (consumer sovereignty)

C1: Therefore, a market (laissez-faire capitalism), with a price mechanism, will only produce what people want based on their actions.

C2: Therefore laissez-faire capitalism is the most effective system to determine how resources are allocated.

This may not seem relevant, but it is. The government prevents a free-market, it prevents this system. A free-market brings all the effects I mentioned above. Surely, you can agree, that this is 'majorly moral'? Once the quality of education increases, it's affects will be seen in the next generation, where the family unit will be socialized with less child abuse, meaning less problems in the future (see the long video above). The government is really standing in the way of that.

Yeah, I agree with higher education bringing a more majorly moral society. But I don't think that the whole system would work as you said. Now this is just me speaking based on personal experience: we dropped our government, and practically lost our electricity. Private companies attempted to deliver electricity to us, but for much higher prices, as naturally, they were not funded by taxes. Electricity is a necessity for all of us. With a free market, those prices may rise. Don't forget, electricity isn't really a competitive business - there's generally one power plant for an entire area. In any case, taxes are not funding the power plants anymore, so they'd be forced to charge higher anyways, unless they don't want any profit (doubtful, as humans are greedy).

Also, with a free market, you're saying the quality of education will increase. But what does that mean if public schools are not funded by taxes anymore? If they're owned by private business, surely a profit has to be made, no? That means that public schools would no longer be free (in America). The same applies to public colleges - they'd be more expensive. Whilst the quality may increase, I think the number of students attending school would decrease if you had to pay for it. A good number of people attending school come from poor families - and we know that these people can have dreams, and want to become something big. If you put a price on school, I'm not sure if these people would be able to attend anymore.

Furthermore, if going to school is compulsory by the government as you suggested before, then it would no longer be compulsory in a free market with social liberty, as there'd be no government that can directly affect its citizens' lives.

Here's what I can agree on - the government having control over things like power plants, infrastructure, etc. but not on small businesses, like the grocery store, so they'd stop taking taxes from there. Also, since all businesses would be private, there'd be no more income tax. However, how would the government be able to fix the infrastructure without tax money, and provide electricity for cheap to us without tax money?

We have to look at your first premise - that our actions are based on our needs. We tend to forget out most basic needs - electricity, water, infrastructure, etc. and these are all essentially provided by the government to us at cheap prices (heck, infrastructure is free, without considering taxes). So I still see the necessity of a government.

I just don't believe initiating force on people is a good thing. Even if it's done for good intentions, and good consequences. That's as simple as it is.

Incidentally, we never even defined government. Government: A group of people, with a monopoly of force, in a geographical area, which has the legal, and moral right to initiate force.

You'll probably disagree with this, but what is your definition of government? What's wrong with my definition? Hopefully, you'll see why I vehemently oppose government in general based on that definition (which I think most accurately depicts truly what government is).

There's nothing wrong with your definition. But your definition doesn't imply that the government cannot do majorly moral things. If you cannot believe that force can be used to do moral deeds, then there's nothing I can say that would convince you. Force has to be taken in context - it's not necessarily shooting someone in the head. Take the example of the guy running naked on the street that I gave above. Force can be used to do majorly moral acts.

You started it (the long posting), don't complain =,=

I know! Shouldn't I get a trophy for starting the trend? I mean, we're contributing a lot to the forum.

 

[malakadang]

Only if you want to work. Don't argue by saying every human being has the right to sell their labor - more on that below.

I'll deal with that below then.

Wrong - you didn't trace the argument back to its roots. You said this, "Ok, how is this different from slavery." How is what different from slavery? A normal citizen, performing normal routines, in a society that is governed by a government. I told you, unlike a normal citizen, slaves don't really get benefits (not they absolutely do not). You cherry picked a case where they did, but in the end, the link I gave you said itself that they did not receive as many benefits as a normal Romanian citizen, going back to your first question: "Ok, how is this different from slavery."

I still hold the position that taxation is akin to slavery. You did not consent to be taxed, and there is no social contract.

Now you're agreeing they're different. Don't forget, parenthood can be defined as slavery as well. If we're slaves now, I don't mind it, and I doubt a lot of Americans mind it either.

You may not mind, but history has shown that the more free slaves are, the more productive they become. I'm arguing for full freedom, and you are arguing for partial freedom. I am championing liberty, and you are restraining it. You're right, some parents do enslave their kids, but most don't. It's not slavery if there's no initiation of force involved.

If you're a normal citizen, you do not need permission to leave. You just act like you're on vacation, transfer your money to a private bank, and turn in your passport. Very simple. It's been done before. I actually did this without turning in my passport, because I left before I started working, so there were no final tax fees that I had to pay.

You need your passport to leave, at least in Australia as far as I know. Even

Every human has the right to sell their labor - more on that soon.

Why does every human have property rights? If that's the case, a lot of mingling would occur between countries - the Mexicans would flood America, the Arabs would flood America, etc. To have property rights within your own country - yes, but why? I'm sure you know by now.

You agreed to it when you said a person owns themselves... Come on, don't argue positions you don't truly believe in, it's a contradiction to believe in theft but not property rights. Property rights apply absolutely, and independent of any human institution; they are natural rights.

Okay, look, you're not going to get exactly what you want. Let's say I want a billion dollars. I even work really hard for it, but in the end, I get 500 million. Should I still not be content? It's better than most people, and in the end, it does make me happy. Asking for happiness does not imply I'm a utilitarian. We all want to be happy.

There's nothing wrong with striving for what you want though. If you want to take the stance, o, it's the best we can do. No, it's the best that there is right now, and we can do better.

How would Person Y determine trading his TV for a radio and a PS3 is a good deal?

It worked for centuries with barter... it's also subjective theory of value...

You agree that having a common currency would make things easier. Such a thing needs to be controlled by a big party - like a government.

Wrong, private enterprise.

In any case, this is hypothetical - the currency already exists, you agree to using it, and you agree that it helps make transactions easier. The definition of 'service' includes to help others - so, the government can be seen as providing a service to its people. You were arguing against that initially, and what I wrote above was against your argument. Now you seem to be agreeing.

Do you agree with monopolies?

May I ask you why the US counterfeited its currency?

Don't think so. Otherwise it'd be really hard to control. Using materials like gold, silver, etc. was dropped for an obvious reason. Having paper money needs serious control, or you know what could happen.

Obvious reason? Yes, paper money needs serious control; government is not providing it.

I agree with that, but you keep making it seem like paying taxes is the absolute only thing you can do. Again, you can leave - you'd be surprised how many free markets exist in the middle east. We all speak English here - the news just focuses on the bad parts of the middle east to make it seem like we're underdeveloped. Fact of the matter is that many of us are making more money than any American could ever dream of. You can come if you'd like. You're not doomed to one decision. America doesn't force you to stay in its country.

Name 10. Also, I'll deal with your constant love it or leave it argument below.

Also, you're missing an important point - there are indications where I agree. For example, when I open a bank account, surely on the contract/terms and conditions it mentions something of interest tax? If I sign that contract/agree to the terms and conditions, that's it - I essentially agreed, so now it'd make me a hypocrite to object, and still use the service.

The free-market can provide this service. The government intervenes. The natural state of affairs is a free market. Also, you don't sign a contract, if I did, show me it.

It's the same thing when I register my name under a business.

If you want to set up a business where the goods and services for sale have GST, you need to register your business, it's not optional. They force you to.

That's not the entire scenario. You have the right to sell your own labor, but it's based on the conditions of the job you're working for. Of course, I can claim that I'm a good computer engineer, but if I don't meet the qualifications for Rockwell, they will not accept me. So, what's the condition that we're looking for? You're working for a business THAT HAS ALREADY REGISTERED ITSELF UNDER THE GOVERNMENT. The business is the legal property of the government, and they have already signed numerous contracts and agreed to numerous terms and conditions that prove this. Perhaps you should read more about how businesses come about (http://www.sba.gov/content/5-steps-registering-your-business). They need a Federal Tax ID, a State Tax ID, etc. These all relate to YOU paying taxes as well. When you register for a business (normally under contract), you're under them, and they've ALREADY AGREED to being under the government. You should know this, as all the information is available to you. You're telling me when you work for a business, you don't expect taxes to be taken from your income? Of course not. You essentially agree to paying the taxes when you agree to the terms and conditions of the business (normally done by contract), and work for them, yet still complain about the taxes. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Again, you've presupposed the social contract. If you sell your labour to me, and make cake tins for me, and I sell them, why should we both be forced to pay tax? The government forces all these rules and regulations onto you, businesses have no choice but to comply, they don't want to comply, it makes them less productive, it wastes their time, they don't do it for fun, they do it because they must.

Now, you walk up to a neighbor, mow his lawn, and get 20 bucks. Would the government take part of that money? Nope, unless you put it in the bank and get interest... essentially another governmental service that you agree to using when you open a bank account. It's in the terms and conditions when you open a bank account that you will be charged interest tax. Don't want to be charged? Don't agree to the terms and conditions.

Which terms of agreement that I signed says that I have to divorce myself from a part of my income. O wait, that's it, there is no legal, and real one.

I'm sorry, but some are against it. Just like how some people dislike Chick-fil-A now that they know its CEO is against homosexual marriage.

You can voluntarily boycott things for whatever reason you want. You cannot force people to however not do x because you don't like it... So long as they haven't violated anyones' rights, what right do you have to violate theirs?

The actions don't happen simultaneously. Initially, Bill Gates wouldn't be happy when he looks in his bank and sees he lost a billion dollars (this is logical). He would be like, "Shit, I've been robbed!" Later, when he turns on the news, and sees that his money was used by a thief to save a million cancer patients, he agrees, and is not sad anymore (in the hypothetical example).

There still is an initiator (the thief), and the person did not voluntarily consent to the thief taking his money.

If Bill Gates voluntarily consents, then it's fine. Your using words that presuppose your conclusion btw.

Thing is, the analogy is wrong. You can leave without the government's permission - a slave needs the master's permission. You use your passport, and get out, then you drop your citizenship. Again, it's been done before.

Done to the death.

It essentially corroborates to what I said: "If you renounce your Australian citizenship while overseas you cannot re-enter Australia without a valid visa."

That presupposes you've already left.

I didn't mean for you to drop the passport first, then leave. I mean, after you have left, you drop your passport, but then after that, you most likely will not be able to return to your country.

What do you need to leave the country? Curious.

In any case, in the US, you can even drop your passport before you leave for the sole reason of dropping taxes, but they charge you one final time before you leave, if your income is really high (because it would be obvious why you're leaving). Of course, you can bypass that too (illegally). Doesn't matter by then, as you're leaving the country.

Done to the death; you really should never be forced to leave though.

This means nothing. The poor actually have a benefit - they can drop their passport 'legally' without really paying anything. The poor also are not normally the ones complaining about taxes, as they barely pay any of it anyways. Furthermore, the poor get many benefits (such as welfare), so they essentially get more than what they pay in taxes.

http://mises.org/daily/2190

Welfare makes things worse.

Also, when you buy a house, you sign a contract. I'm not sure if there is anything about property taxes in that contract though, but it's something to think about.

Let's presuppose it is true. A contract without property tax is illegal, and would be grounds for being thrown in jail. So, you are forced...

Such as? Not paying taxes won't keep you from leaving the country.

Victimless crimes such as prostitution, doing drugs, etc.

You missed the point - we agreed the government gives permission freely. What does that mean, in context? The government gives you the freedom to leave whenever you want. Let's imagine now that we weren't given 'permission'. The statement becomes: you have the freedom to leave whenever you want. The outcome is the same. You can leave whenever you want. There's really no 'permission' needed, you can go without asking for anything.

Done to the death.

You're missing an important factor - it's not the entire society that's against the government. It's just you. If the entire society happened to be against the government, the government would be thrown out. It's happened before, and is actually happening now in parts of the middle east. But just because you're not happy, you don't have the right to make a decision for the entire population.

Hitler would've loved you as a citizen. Supporting the status quo despite it's immorality. It's called tyranny of the majority, and a fundamental problem in democracy.

I wouldn't mind a free market! I'm against social liberty, and that's something you want with the free market, though.

Well, we can agree that the government prevents a free market (a true free market, I don't think you're advocating a true free market).

Yeah, but it offered essentials at cheap prices - something you're trying to achieve with the free market?

Free market guarantees low prices and a high quality service. Public services distort the price mechanism, though they may provide low prices, and they inevitable, always provide low quality services. It happens after a couple generations when the entrepreneurs are all dead. Look at Americas education system, it costs more to run than independent schools, and provides shitty education.

It's not self-defense anymore though. Defense of others can be wrong. Take this for example - Russia is fighting with Germany. USA has absolutely no involvement in the fight, but Russia is slightly beating Germany, so USA attacks Russia, and hence, is 'defending' Germany. You think that's okay?

Attacking Russia is initiating force on Russia. Defending Germany entails going to Germany and protecting the rights of its citizens. There are mixed views on this though.

With what you're saying (rejecting intrinsic value), you reject objective morals, and you accept that morality is based on its context (I used the word 'scenario' before) and that hence, it has elements of subjectivity. It drops a lot of your previous arguments.

It's like nutrition.

Okay. Now, what if it wasn't a friend, but an innocent bystander?

Same applies, your protecting other peoples rights.

Cool. Now, we've already rejected intrinsic values. Let's look at the word 'force' in its scenario now, as we have agreed that it is meaningless by itself. The government 'forces' people not to take drugs (without further reading, you would argue that this is immoral, as taking drugs is a personal decision, 'you own yourself', and there are no self-defense arguments here to justify forcing something against another person's will), because it can damage their bodies, and kill them. Now, after reading the entire scenario, would you judge it as majorly moral, or immoral?

Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with it. The government is coercing people to do what they want. That is immoral. If you want to say you support coercion, be my guest. I don't even if it results good consequences. What If I coerce all people who don't agree with me to live in an anarcho-capitalist society? It would arguably be majorly moral, there's A LOT of literature to support this, I can show you numerous videos from that guy if you want. No, it's not, coercion is wrong.

You see where I'm coming at? Don't forget, a majority of my argument is against the claim that moral deeds cannot be achieved by immoral means. Do you still agree with what you said before?

Do I think the ends justify the means? No. Apparently you do...

Aggressiveness =/= Immorality.

Aggressiveness in the form of the initiation of force is immoral.

Assumption: I'm utilitarian. I never thought of myself as one. You're defining myself as one compared to yourself. I don't always think in a utilitarian sense. I'm sure prostitution would make lots of men happy, but I'm still against it.

Rule-utilitarian? You want rules that maximize happiness in the long run. Either way, you are DEFINATELY a consequentialist.

If I'm not mistaken, these things are owned by the government initially. Now, for the lake, if someone were to buy it, kill off all the fish, and the government objects, I would not agree. But I'm not sure if this is the case. I mean, surely you're allowed to cut down trees in your backyard, correct? Considering it is your own property, and the trees do belong to you. If you plant a tree in your backyard, and cut it off later, you shouldn't be punished.

You need permisison from the council. We had trees blocking the view from our property, and my parents needed permission to cut them down. Also, we logged 5 acres of trees behind our house, and the council tried to fine us. An anecdote, but, private ownership of natural resources solves the tragedy of the commons problem.

Now why does the government initially have the land/lake? I suppose this is just a consequence of our founding fathers. We should be thankful that they're using the land/lake for good (making sure the fish don't go extinct so there's always a good supply for the people), rather than selling all the fish at once to earn profit for themselves.

Well, the government is doing nothing with a lot of the land... It results in a GDP gap.

Yup, I do. But self-defense is a scenario, not a sole action.

Self-defense depends on context, sure; the context primarily being you defend yourself.

I would, but the thing is, it is not moral. Killing all the people in poverty is not a solution as you should weigh things out MORALLY, not by consequences. Again, I said this before, I'm not judging necessarily on happiness/unhappiness, I'm judging on what I believe is moral/immoral. I cannot presuppose it is moral if it obviously is not. And you cannot use the example against me if it already contradicts to your question.

But, what if it was 'majorly moral'? Your morality really seems all over the place... On the one hand you are basing it on consequences of an action, on the other you have this moral sense thing going on, then you have objective morality in the form of killing is wrong.

Morality is subjective, never said it isn't. And there's no problem that it is. You say subjectivity is unhelpful? This is really easy to refute - do you believe sugar is sweet? That's subjective. Still, it's majorly sweet. According to what you said, the absolute statement that sugar is sweet is false. But we know in real life, that means absolutely nothing. According to you, for me to say that sugar is sweet means absolutely nothing.

It is unhelpful. My Dad has 4 sugars and he thinks it's good. I have none, and I think it's good. It depends on perception. Perception is subjective from person to person. It's not very helpful, especially when we are trying to find the truth. Question: is x good. Answer: Yes and No. Not helpful at all.

Even with colors, they're based on our perception. I may say the sky is blue. You may too. So would Billy, Timmy, Joey, and all the other fictional characters I have made up in this debate. But Sean is color blind - he sees it as red. So, the color of the sky is subjective as well. But are you telling me it's complete nonsense to say the sky is blue?

Subjectivity is no good when we search for the truth. Again, is x blue. Answer: Yes and No. That's not helpful.

You see how silly all of this sounds? Look, let's go back to the thief scenario. Let's say the thief was a good brother of sister Susie. Obviously when Johnny shoots the thief, Susie is going to object against Johnny because she believes what he did was immoral - he killed her brother! Yet really, the entire scenario was majorly moral. But that's the thing - morality is subjective. Sure, some people may not agree with your morals, but some are so obvious as sugar being sweet. In any case, both are still subjective.

Doesn't matter what Susie thinks. Some people may think the holocaust is justified, we call them delusional. Again, when we search for the truth, a system (subjectivity), that allows answers to be contradictory, is unhelpful.

Okay, so you're rejecting intrinsic values? Above.

Addressed. By chance, is water good?

Force is not bad - in fact it's necessary. If someone says, "I object to the law of running out naked on the street," and runs out naked on the street, you would be fine with it? Or do you think some sort of force needs to be applied to stop him? You cannot use your 'self-defense' argument here as the person running naked on the street is not initiating force on anybody. But still, force is required to stop him. If you try to talk him out of it, I doubt he'd listen - I mean, he's already running naked on the street.

Initiation of force.

So we're back to looking at the context again. Saying the government uses force doesn't mean the government is immoral, as you tried to imply way before. It's about looking at the context, and weighing things out.

Initiation of force. Are you honestly saying the initiation of force is morally justifiable.

So you're allowed to use the rules that benefit you, and allowed to break the ones that don't? You think the government would allow a slave master to use the 'no trespassing' rule if he's already breaking a bigger rule - 'no slavery'? If anything, if this takes both people to court (it probably wouldn't as the master would hide this, but hypothetically), it would just get the master in trouble.


Now don't tell me, "Oh, so if I don't pay taxes, but I shoot someone on my lawn for self-defense, I will be punished?" Because in that case, you forgot to weigh things out. 'No slavery' >> 'No trespassing' (in terms of importance). The government does bend rules - it's all about fairness.

Both are morally wrong. Trespassing initiates force by violating ones property rights. Slavery depends on the type of slavery, but yes, generally the severity of force initiated is greater. They are both wrong though.

And historical governments are different from governments of the present day.

They all operate under the initiation of force.

You're allowed to ask to not go to school, provided you have a good reason. Again, we're dealing with fairness. If a slave begged for no education, the master would laugh, probably give him a few slaps, and force him into education.

Why do you need a good reason. It's like: You are forced to do this unless you have a good reason. Excuse me, I'm forced?

Was attacking what you said, and sentence was taken out of context.

Not really, it's the ramifications of what you said. If I remember correctly, some slaves in Rome had slave, not sure if that was true though...

The poorest people that cannot afford to leave are the ones that benefit the most from taxes. What they pay the government, they get back in an even larger quantity. I'm not sure about Australia, but I'm speaking of America.

Fact: Before welfare, poverty was being privately eliminated. Fact: After welfare, poverty gradually increased. Poverty creates a permanent underclass, and it promotes... poverty.

And if a person is poor because of their own actions, I do not sympathize with them.

I'd argue that many people are poor because of the government. It should be noted that there is a culmulative disadvantage for the poor, it is harder for them to succeed than the rich by nature of society favoring the cultural capital of the middle class, as well as the fact that dumb people mate with each other and produce dumb off spring (overgeneralizing, but, it is somewhat true).

Exactly. Making an entire case based on little evidence.

Not really...

Yes, but the point is, if you grabbed a random citizen - actually, you grabbed Bill Gates, told him, "You're a slave for the US government," and you actually proved to him that in a sense, he is in fact a slave, he'd most likely reply with, "Well, I guess being a slave isn't so bad after all."

You're right. Words are insalvageable due to their connotation.

I'll repeat what I said.

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

It's all about weighing things out again.

Also, it's about how you achieved those freedoms. I mean, if I had the freedom of speech by killing everyone so no one could object to what I said, obviously that's not a freedom to be proud about.

Here goes the consequentialist inside you!

How those freedoms come about? What if the government repealed laws, and begun decentralizing.

It can still happen. Sometimes kids runaway from their parents, and they die, because they cannot live out on their own. Even if it's rare, that's irrelevant. Some of your slavery examples are rare as well. I was making a point that in a sense, parenthood can be viewed as slavery - and it still can. A child could want to leave, and the parents will not send him/her out. Instead, the child is forced to runaway, where he/she would most likely die. It happens, we know that.

Bad parenting ruins society, and bad parenting enslaves the kids (coercion). A child that runs away is also not likely to die, there are charities, kind people, and so on. For the record, by dad ran away from home when he was a child, it wasn't so much due to bad parenting, just a divorce. He turned out better than most.

I'll try to watch it - it's 18-19 minutes!

It's worth more than that!

According to the definition, not really. There was nothing about being harsh for it to be considered slavery. We know there are people who hate their parents just because they won't let them go out after 10. It's not necessary that the parents have to be molesting, beating, etc. the child for said child to want to leave.

Children may hate their parents, but if you ask them whether they want to leave, they'll say no. How does this differ from government? Simple, government coerce

Self-defense justifies the statement I said. Earlier, you were trying to use a fallacy to debunk it.

k.

Morality deals with both the actions and the consequences - I never said one or the other, hence why I used the word 'scenario', which generally means to encompass everything relevant. You even agreed to this. If the thief stole the money from Bill Gates, used it to treat a million cancer patients, and Bill Gates was fine with this, then you saw no problem. It's about the entire scenario, about the actions and the consequences, and weighing things out.

In that scenario, consequences matters not. If the thief spent money on funding al qaeda, and Bill Gates was fine with it, I'd be fine with it (although I'd question why Bill Gates was ok with it).

If you're not willing to even look at the consequences, then I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. If I spend a thousand dollars to treat a few cancer patients all so the hot nurse would think I was compassionate and have sex with me, you don't think that's wrong? There's something moral in there (trying to help the cancer patients), but the consequence is just me trying to coax the nurse into having sex with me. This is why we must ALWAYS weigh things out.

I don't see a problem with it tbh. He didn't initiate force, his actions were voluntary... Yet, you claim, that it is sometimes moral to initiate force? That's insane! A guy that helps people to get laid is immoral, but the guy who points guns at people with the intention of bringing about a 'majorly moral' outcome is championed?

'The ends justify the means' is an absolute statement. I do not agree with it always. But in some cases, it is correct. Example: If we kill the thief, he will not steal from the bank nor harm many lives. Protecting the people and the bank justifies killing the thief - essentially agreeing to the self-defense principle.

How do you differentiate the cases in which it is correct, and not correct?

Your statement was absolute. You said that moral actions cannot be done through immoral means. I only need to find one example where this is not true to disprove the statement, and I have found many.

Let's take this very simple one. Stealing from one rich person. Giving the money to 100 poor people.

Stealing from the rich person is immoral, if you disagree, then you have no respect for property rights. Giving money to 100 people is, sure, moral. We've broken it down, part a is immoral, part a, moral. The totality of the action is immoral. You have a scientific theory. The first 90% is true, the last 10% is false. The theory is false, it will fail peer-review. What you advocate is violence and good intentions. It was trialed with communism, they had the best of intentions, and look what happened. Hell, why don't you sell all you have, go to an african country that is in poverty, and help them with your first-aid knowledge, and so on? That would bring about a majorly moral scenario, and you can initiate it voluntarily yourself. So, we have a non-coerced action with great consequences. Why don't you do it? Why do you instead advocate the use of coercion to achieve great consequences, when you yourself can achieve great consequences without force?

Typical, forcing people to give to charity without giving to charity yourself when you can. Initiating force on people to achieve positive outcomes, when you can voluntarily achieve positive outcomes yourself.

This deals with the wrong issue. Nutrition is needed for every human being to survive - this is a fact. No human can survive without nutrition. Find an example, and it's not so objective anymore. The type of nutrition that one prefers is irrelevant. Nutrition deals with needs, not wants.

No. Nutrition deals with health. Whether or not you agree with the facts science have discovered about nutrition, if you take 500,000 UI of vitamin A, you will suffer the consequences. Nutrition has principles, but the actions people take are indeed different. For example, you need a sufficient intake of let's say vitamin C. Some people have vitamin C deficiency, and thus need more. Some people have too much vitamin C, so they need less. Principle: you need x vitamin C. Action: Increase or Decrease Vitamin C intake. It's subjective on the second level, but it's based on the principles which are objective.

Now morals are viewed differently everywhere. Some people view cannibalism as moral, and perform it routinely - sometimes to even family members in African tribes. Others don't view this as moral at all. Essentially, morality deals with values. Don't forget what the term 'value' means - it means what we think is either good or bad.

If whatever I think is moral, then can we not both be right at the same time?

Now, you're saying morality is ESSENTIAL to humans, and I agree. Nutrition deals with needs; morality deals with values. But still, this gets us nowhere. I need values, okay, but how do I determine that a value is good, or a value is bad? Don't forget, we're not arguing on the existence of morality, or why we need it, we're arguing on what is good, and what is bad - what is moral, and what is immoral.

I think I've explained this above.

Go the example that I gave above with the color blind person, and try to say this statement again to yourself.

Reality is not subject to the whims of someone. A colour is blue when it's wavelength is x. The fact that the color blind person cannot perceive such a wavelength does not change reality, it's only his perception.

Irrelevant. You asked me if I believe that sometimes pointing a gun to force someone to do something is justified on certain occasions. Emphasis on 'certain'. I said yes, and gave you an example that you cannot argue with, because you know it's right - it is obviously pertaining to the defense of other people. I never said anything about pointing a gun to force someone to do something being justified on all occasions. You're diverting from the initial argument at hand.

You gave no such example where the initiation of force is justified.

It's definitely longer than it sounds. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were over-dramatizing. You said 'don't pay taxes, get shot'. That's like me describing my life as 'being born, then dying'. There are many things in-between.

I structured it as a slippery slope, I agree.

What is this, the third time I've said it? Social contract is a theory - I really hate its name now! I wish it was called the 'expectation theory'. You're really taking its name too literal! The theory DOES exist, and its rules are normally applied. It's like me telling you about the theory of gravity, and you object it doesn't exist, yet we still know gravity is operating on us.

said the social contract deals with expectations, then led to the point of hypocrisy. In any case, read above. There are other indications besides the social contract which indicate you should expect to pay taxes, and yet you agree to them. No matter how vague they are, they exist.

You missed what I edited in.

You understood me wrong. If you're willing to work for a business THAT'S REGISTERED UNDER THE GOVERNMENT, expect to pay taxes, as we know the registration process a business goes through. You put yourself under the business (normally by contract), and the business has ALREADY AGREED to making itself a property of the government, AND PAYING TAXES. The same thing applies to banks - you're explicitly told you'll be charged interest taxes, yet you still agree to registering for a bank account, put money into it, and then complain when taxes are being taken. That's hypocrisy. If you don't like to read the terms and conditions, then don't agree to them. It's very simple.

Right, but businesses are forced to register under the government if they want to sell 99% of goods or services. The question becomes what justifies the governments initiation of force in this regard?

Above. Also, I disagree with the government taking taxes from a job like mowing a lawn, as you're not working for any business. Now if you were to make a business out of this but not register it under the government, then that would be unfair to all the other business that have already registered under the government. And we know why businesses need to be registered under a government.

Yea, so they can be taxed. Why tax, social contract. It all comes back to that.

I agree, but it appears the 'damage' is done.

The damage is caused by fractional reserve banking (the cause of the Great Depression, and subsequent shift the Keynesian economics).

Yeah I know, but when it comes to real humans, I think chaos would occur.

Why? Short answer please.

Yes, but I argued way before (probably in my first post) that some laws are made based on morality. You said self-defense is moral. The law that it's okay so shoot someone for self-defense was made as an exception to the law that you cannot kill anyone. You argued that laws cannot do anything moral, as they are innately immoral, which I made numerous points against.

Is initiating force on someone for disagreements in belief immoral? Please don't say it depends...

This is essentially why I think prostitution and drugs should STILL be illegal (in America).

Perhaps religion should also be illegal.


Yes, but what's to say that nurture won't even further reinforce these actions? After all, they're more abundant now.

Okay, but does this have to occur with pure social liberty?

No, it does not, but by virtue of prohibiting the sale of certain substances...

Yeah, I agree with higher education bringing a more majorly moral society. But I don't think that the whole system would work as you said. We dropped a government here - we practically lost our electricity. Private companies attempted to deliver electricity to us, but for much higher prices, as naturally, they were not funded by taxes. Electricity is a necessity for all of us. With a free market, those prices may rise. Don't forget, electricity isn't really a competitive business - there's generally one power plant for an entire area. In any case, taxes are not funding the power plants anymore, so they'd be forced to charge higher anyways, unless they don't want any profit (doubtful, as humans are greedy).

The free-market is not an instant fix. Besides, public education doesn't work. America has tried for years, and years, they've pumped money into it, they've done x, y, z. It sucks. The Private schools on the other hand are doing a better job.

Also, think of it this way, if the government did not provide the service, private enterprise will. It's what always happens, where there is demand, there is always supply (unless there's regulation in the way). Will the price end up being higher? Maybe, especially if he government operated at a natural monopoly. But people would be paying less taxes right?

Also, with a free market, you're saying the quality of education will increase. But what does that mean if public schools are not funded by taxes anymore? If they're owned by private business, surely a profit has to be made, no? That means that public schools would no longer be free (in America). The same applies to public colleges - they'd be more expensive. Whilst the quality may increase, I think the number of students attending school would decrease if you had to pay for it. A good number of people attending school come from poor families - and we know that these people can have dreams, and want to become something big. If you put a price on school, I'm not sure if these people would be able to attend anymore.

I know what you're saying. The first thing to realize is, some people just aren't suited to 13 years of education, agree? We can teach them language, basic arithmatic, etc, etc within the first let's say up till their 13 years of age. After that, some people just aren't suited to it (they can if they want, but it's like someone with no musical ability trying to play music).

Second, the price of education would actually decrease, there are stats but I really cannot be bothered to find them. Essentially, what tends to happen is that high quality education becomes really cheap (since in a free market taxation would be minimal, peoples income increases anyway).

Thirdly, on the presupposition that truly poor people couldn't afford education, charity could fill the rest. People are benevolent.

Lastly, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people. Without public education, the will of the people, that will being that they want all people educated will still prevail.

Furthermore, if going to school is compulsory by the government as you suggested before, then it would no longer be compulsory in a free market with social liberty, as there'd be no government that can directly affect its citizens' lives.

Correct. But, let's be serious, parents would rarely not send kids to school.

Here's what I can agree on - the government having control over things like power plants, infrastructure, etc. but not on small businesses, like the grocery store, so they'd stop taking taxes from there. Also, since all businesses would be private, there'd be no more income tax. However, how would the government be able to fix the infrastructure without tax money, and provide electricity for cheap to us without tax money?

Infrastructure would be private, and not necessarily expensive. Will it be a bit more expensive? Sure. But there would be almost no taxation, which means your income would increase drastically, more than what would cover the cost of the infrastructure.

We have to look at your first premise - that our actions are based on our needs. We tend to forget out most basic needs - electricity, water, infrastructure, etc. and these are all essentially provided by the government to us at cheap prices (heck, infrastructure is free, without considering taxes). So I still see the necessity of a government.

The first premise is the action axiom. It's an axiom. Besides, this isn't a refutation of the first premise, humans still act purposefully.

There's nothing wrong with your definition. But your definition doesn't imply that the government cannot do majorly moral things. If you cannot believe that force can be used to do moral deeds, then there's nothing I can say that would convince you. Force has to be taken in context - it's not necessarily shooting someone in the head. Take the example of the guy running naked on the street that I gave above. Force can be used to do majorly moral acts.

Anarcho-capitalism is a better system in my honest opinion. This book is an interesting read: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf
There's a table of contents and it deals with some specific issues in a page or 2.


I think that the underlying problem is the existence of the social contract. I don't think it exists, the fundamental reason why I reject government, since the social contract is supposed to legitimize the initiation of force by government.

So, perhaps provide a proper logical argument with premises leading to a conclusion for the social contract? The burden of proof is on you to prove it permits the initiation of force by the government.

I know! Shouldn't I get a trophy for starting the trend? I mean, we're contributing a lot to the forum.

Decreasing storage space on the server =,= This thing is 20 pages; 7000 words =,=

 

[Snoopchicken]

I still hold the position that taxation is akin to slavery. You did not consent to be taxed, and there is no social contract.

I did not consent to be born into a family that's not as rich as Bill Gates' family, there is no filial contract. I'm a slave to my parents. That's the conclusion I get from your reasoning.

You need your passport to leave, at least in Australia as far as I know. Even

What did I say? You leave first (using your passport), transfer your money to a private bank in a different country, then terminate your citizenship. Getting rid of the passport is the last step.

You agreed to it when you said a person owns themselves... Come on, don't argue positions you don't truly believe in, it's a contradiction to believe in theft but not property rights. Property rights apply absolutely, and independent of any human institution; they are natural rights.

I still do agree to it, did I not say 'I agree'? But property rights within a state - not that I can own any property I'd like. And why do I expect to own property within a state?

There's nothing wrong with striving for what you want though. If you want to take the stance, o, it's the best we can do. No, it's the best that there is right now, and we can do better.

You're right. But don't raise your expectations. We all have unfulfilled 'autonomous' wills.

It worked for centuries with barter... it's also subjective theory of value...

Barter isn't what you think it is. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter#Limitations_of_a_barter_economy

Also, exactly, it's subjective theory of value. Subjective. VERY subjective. For all it's worth, I could say my t-shirt that's been signed by Cristiano Ronaldo is worth more than another person's house. He agrees to that, takes my t-shirt, doesn't want it anymore, tries to sell it for another house, but no one accepts. What happened? He was scammed.

Wrong, private enterprise.

Do you agree with monopolies?

Oh, perfect! If I'm not mistaken, doesn't a true free market open the door to monopolies? If I understand you properly when you say 'true', this type of free market means that it is not controlled in any way by a government. What would stop monopoly then? After all, governments are there to prevent monopolies (even though they are essentially monopolies themselves - off the point). Without a government, you have nothing to prevent monopoly. Now, would monopoly necessarily occur? It really depends on the business. Nothing would be absolute - a business would never exist solely without any competitors. But it could happen that none of its competitors could even come close to beating it. The government, on the other hand, would prevent this from happening.

Obvious reason? Yes, paper money needs serious control; government is not providing it.

Resources are limited. There's no precision by using currencies such as gold. Paper money is easy to produce. The population continues to increase - work is increasing. We create more paper money to stabilize prices. Etcetera.

Also, this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter#Limitations_of_a_barter_economy

Name 10. Also, I'll deal with your constant love it or leave it argument below.

The middle east is only around 16 countries. If you want one, you got it - Lebanon. Don't forget, there are areas within a country that do not pay taxes, but of course are not well recognized by the government. This does not mean the entire country does not pay taxes. Such is the case with Lebanon - the government only functions within cities such as Beirut, Tripoli, etc. but taxes are charged in such areas.

The free-market can provide this service. The government intervenes. The natural state of affairs is a free market. Also, you don't sign a contract, if I did, show me it.

Missed the point, and you agree to terms and conditions. AGREE. Just saying you agree is enough. There is tangible evidence of the agreement, though. There are documents you have to sign before opening a bank account. Read: http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-open-bank-account-7-steps-to.html

If you want to set up a business where the goods and services for sale have GST, you need to register your business, it's not optional. They force you to.

You didn't understand. When you register yourself UNDER a business. As in, when you work for a new company. Not when you open a new business.

Again, you've presupposed the social contract. If you sell your labour to me, and make cake tins for me, and I sell them, why should we both be forced to pay tax? The government forces all these rules and regulations onto you, businesses have no choice but to comply, they don't want to comply, it makes them less productive, it wastes their time, they don't do it for fun, they do it because they must.

No! There is no mentioning of the social contract WHATSOEVER. You asked me to give you tangible evidence that you agreed. The business has agreed to paying taxes already FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES' SALARIES, and YOU AGREED TO BE AN EMPLOYEE. This is ALL written down on paper. This is all you asked of me - for tangible evidence. Whether the business didn't want to register itself under the government is irrelevant to your question because it's already been done.

Which terms of agreement that I signed says that I have to divorce myself from a part of my income. O wait, that's it, there is no legal, and real one.

Not in those words. But read above.

If Bill Gates voluntarily consents, then it's fine. Your using words that presuppose your conclusion btw.

So you agree. Now trace back the argument, and see how this came about.

Done to the death.

And what makes you say that?

That presupposes you've already left.

I told you that you initially leave. Where's the argument? Perhaps you're reading quickly - I understand, the posts are long, and I tend to read quickly as I well.

What do you need to leave the country? Curious.

Your passport. You drop it after you leave.

Done to the death; you really should never be forced to leave though.

If you don't respect the rules of a school, you're forcefully expelled, and obviously asked not to come back. Said student didn't initiate force. Simply coming to school naked could get you expelled.

http://mises.org/daily/2190

Welfare makes things worse.

Cherry-picking. Welfare in Sweden is not the same as welfare in the US. In any case, this is a blog. I'll deal with the facts later. We'll take a look at statistics on welfare later in this argument.

Let's presuppose it is true. A contract without property tax is illegal, and would be grounds for being thrown in jail. So, you are forced...

Irrelevant - you signed it. You asked for tangible evidence of agreement. Here it is. Now you're trying to go backwards. We can go backwards as far as we like, but would it get us anywhere?

Victimless crimes such as prostitution, doing drugs, etc.

Offering those services would make you a criminal because you ARE affecting other lives. Don't take these jobs lightly - many people die at the mercy of drug dealers, and perform many negative actions (theft) because of them.

Now by using prostitutes/drugs, would you be a criminal? Of course not. Come on, how come we hear stories on the news of teenagers taking drugs, where they actually give the teenager's name? Surely if it was a major crime, the police would immediately be at said teenager's doorstep to take him/her to jail after watching the news. This would mean that the teenager would prevent putting his/her name on public television in the first place - but we know that this doesn't happen. Now ask yourself, do you ever hear a drug dealer's name being said on TV?

Hitler would've loved you as a citizen. Supporting the status quo despite it's immorality. It's called tyranny of the majority, and a fundamental problem in democracy.

Problem - we're assuming that what I'm advocating is immoral.

Well, we can agree that the government prevents a free market (a true free market, I don't think you're advocating a true free market).

Yeah, I agree. And yes, I'm not advocating a true free market. More on that.

Free market guarantees low prices and a high quality service. Public services distort the price mechanism, though they may provide low prices, and they inevitable, always provide low quality services. It happens after a couple generations when the entrepreneurs are all dead. Look at Americas education system, it costs more to run than independent schools, and provides shitty education.

Okay, but it's free. You're missing something with a free market - who controls the infrastructure? No one would take the burden of actually making new roads, bridges, etc. because no one would pay for them to do so since they belong to EVERYBODY, and there's no profit to be made. Now, we can ask everybody to pay - but in a free market, I can just refuse to pay. In fact, we probably all would refuse to pay, except a select few. You may agree that you would pay for the sake of the argument, but I'm sure a numerous amount of people won't pay a single penny. This means either the people that NEED the improved infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) would have to pay A LOT higher than what they were paying before through taxes, or there's no improvement in infrastructure. So how can we improve our infrastructure without a government taking taxes from us? Think about it. I don't believe a true free market would work. Of course where I live isn't a true free market - it's just that if you want to have a business without registering it, you can. But in the city, where the infrastructure is great (note that this is only in the city) taxes are still being paid. But, again, this is only in the city (and they get 24 hour electricity). For the rest of us outside the city, we don't pay taxes, but we have bad infrastructure, and barely any electricity.

Attacking Russia is initiating force on Russia. Defending Germany entails going to Germany and protecting the rights of its citizens. There are mixed views on this though.

And saying something mean to the bully was initiation of force by me, as the bully wasn't attacking me, yet you still agreed to the scenario. What's different?

There are mixed views on probably all of the scenarios I'm giving - but I want to know your view. After all, I'm arguing with you.

Same applies, your protecting other peoples rights.

Ah, but technically, this is similar to the scenario above! I'm initiating force - after all, I'm not involved personally with the conflict at all now, considering the fact that this person is not my friend, but simply a bystander. Now didn't you say that it's immoral to initiate force? Or is it okay in this context? If you agree to the latter, then you agree to a lot of points I've said about taking the context into consideration.

Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with it. The government is coercing people to do what they want. That is immoral. If you want to say you support coercion, be my guest. I don't even if it results good consequences. What If I coerce all people who don't agree with me to live in an anarcho-capitalist society? It would arguably be majorly moral, there's A LOT of literature to support this, I can show you numerous videos from that guy if you want. No, it's not, coercion is wrong.

I disagree. Force is not always wrong. You have to look at the actions and consequences.

Do I think the ends justify the means? No. Apparently you do...

Either/or fallacy: you're assuming either I agree to this statement, or I don't. I told you, I agree to it sometimes - it depends on the context. I gave you an example where it appeared justified to me. You didn't do anything to refute it.

Aggressiveness in the form of the initiation of force is immoral.

I gave an example on this already - guy running naked on the street.

Rule-utilitarian? You want rules that maximize happiness in the long run. Either way, you are DEFINATELY a consequentialist.

This is like judging me after just meeting me. I told you, when I make a decision, I encompass EVERYTHING. Happiness, morality, the actions taken, the consequences received, etc. If anything, I would call myself fair.

You ignore the consequences. I've given you an example where that's wrong - the hot nurse (that sounded sillier than I thought it would).

You need permisison from the council. We had trees blocking the view from our property, and my parents needed permission to cut them down. Also, we logged 5 acres of trees behind our house, and the council tried to fine us. An anecdote, but, private ownership of natural resources solves the tragedy of the commons problem.

Ah, really? I'm not sure if it's like this in America. If it is, I don't agree with it

Well, the government is doing nothing with a lot of the land... It results in a GDP gap.

They're expanding.

But, what if it was 'majorly moral'? Your morality really seems all over the place... On the one hand you are basing it on consequences of an action, on the other you have this moral sense thing going on, then you have objective morality in the form of killing is wrong.

No, you're getting lots of things mixed up. First, I told you, I take everything into consideration - it's only fair. Second, I don't agree to objective morality - I agreed to the premise of your argument so I can initialize an argument with you, and your premise was that some things like 'control' and 'force' are immoral PERIOD. So I went based on that premise, and added lots of obvious ones in there, like killing, lying, etc. But of course I don't believe in objective morals - I've said numerous times they're subjective. Now, do you reject objective morals (in the sense that I'm talking - control, force, killing, etc.) as well? It negates a big part of your argument - that the law cannot be moral because it controls people (by forcing them to do things). Don't forget - that statement you said started the entire debate. You claimed force is always immoral. If it's always immoral, that means objectively, force is immoral. I don't think so.

It is unhelpful. My Dad has 4 sugars and he thinks it's good. I have none, and I think it's good. It depends on perception. Perception is subjective from person to person. It's not very helpful, especially when we are trying to find the truth. Question: is x good. Answer: Yes and No. Not helpful at all.

You changed my example. Read it again. For me to say sugar is sweet - is that nonsensical? Would it not help in a debate if I wanted to make my unsweetened, sugar-free cookies taste more sweet for children? "Here, add some sugar, maybe that would help it become more sweet!" "No, we're not adding sugar, Ben. Just because you think it's sweet, doesn't mean it would make the cookies more sweet for the children."

Subjectivity is no good when we search for the truth. Again, is x blue. Answer: Yes and No. That's not helpful.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that even the most obvious things are subjective. What do you think - do you think the sky is blue?

Doesn't matter what Susie thinks. Some people may think the holocaust is justified, we call them delusional. Again, when we search for the truth, a system (subjectivity), that allows answers to be contradictory, is unhelpful.

Oh, so wait! Isn't that an appeal to popularity fallacy? Just because nearly everyone thinks the action is justified, Susie's opinion doesn't count? I mean, if I'm not wrong, a good majority of people were against homosexuality, black people, etc. It's a good thing we listened to the minority in those cases though!

Face it - morality is subjective. A simple example is a baby lying. All babies do it. Yet as they grow to be toddlers, their parents tell them that lying is bad, so they cut down on the lying, because they think it's immoral, and feel bad afterwards. Of course, later they learn that lying in some cases is okay (by looking at the entire scenario), but the fact of the matter is that the idea they had when they were a toddler, that lying is bad, was simply put into their heads. The same thing applies to stealing - babies believe that they own everything. If they could steal property, they would. Yet even you said we have the natural right to own property. This is all heavily researched, and I've done a presentation on this before of why I believe babies are evil (I was joking of course, but if you want to see it, I can send it to you - it's pretty funny).

This is why a lot of your laws, fallacies, etc. simply cannot apply, because those things tend to apply for absolution. Morality is not absolution. What may be moral today, may not be moral in the future. Wasn't there a point in time where it was considered wrong for a woman to show excessive skin? Look at them now.

Addressed. By chance, is water good?

Mixing things up.

Initiation of force.

What? Read the example again. The police initiated force. The man running naked did not initiate force. I explicitly stated that.

Unless you're saying that wasn't necessary. Because, it was. I need to know what you think of the entire situation - was it moral, or immoral? If you want a revamped version of this example, I repeat it below, so you don't have to reply here.

Initiation of force. Are you honestly saying the initiation of force is morally justifiable.

In certain cases, it is. Look at the example of the man running naked again. Force does not mean put a gun to someone's head. That only happens when the person breaking the law is being extremely defiant, or threatens to kill the policemen. Follow what I said (the sentence before this one) with its context - look at the example again.

Both are morally wrong. Trespassing initiates force by violating ones property rights. Slavery depends on the type of slavery, but yes, generally the severity of force initiated is greater. They are both wrong though.

Yeah, that was the point, that one is greater than the other, so if both were to be in court, the slave master would be the one punished (bending the rules, fairness, etc.).

Why do you need a good reason. It's like: You are forced to do this unless you have a good reason. Excuse me, I'm forced?

Missing the point. You're comparing slavery to the government. With slavery, you don't have any hope of getting permission, or that hope is very little. With the government, you do. So comparing slavery in the sense you are trying to elicit to the government and its citizens is not as valid as you think.

Not really, it's the ramifications of what you said. If I remember correctly, some slaves in Rome had slave, not sure if that was true though...

Okay, but I don't see how it's relevant to my point though.

Fact: Before welfare, poverty was being privately eliminated. Fact: After welfare, poverty gradually increased. Poverty creates a permanent underclass, and it promotes... poverty.

Ouch, you have it wrong! And you stated it's a fact (the second one), too! All I need to prove it wrong is a good set of statistics that show the exact opposite of what you're saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfar...#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare

I'd argue that many people are poor because of the government. It should be noted that there is a culmulative disadvantage for the poor, it is harder for them to succeed than the rich by nature of society favoring the cultural capital of the middle class, as well as the fact that dumb people mate with each other and produce dumb off spring (overgeneralizing, but, it is somewhat true).

I actually somewhat agree to this. But the government does help. Read above.

Here goes the consequentialist inside you!

How those freedoms come about? What if the government repealed laws, and begun decentralizing.

The last few sentences are the exact opposite mindset of a consequentialist. I'm just being fair. I look at the consequences, the actions that led to those consequences, the morality of all actions in their given context, etc. This is fairness. I'm not looking at one thing, and you know that, as you obviously saw my last few sentences because you replied to them. Looking at one thing is making a judgement of the whole based on a part. I refuse to do that.

Bad parenting ruins society, and bad parenting enslaves the kids (coercion). A child that runs away is also not likely to die, there are charities, kind people, and so on. For the record, by dad ran away from home when he was a child, it wasn't so much due to bad parenting, just a divorce. He turned out better than most.

Keeping a kid indoors before 10 is not bad parenting. Being protective of your children is not bad parenting. Children want to have fun. They hate it when their parents do things like this, and they escape. I mean, look at this, some of the cases are silly (http://www.destructoid.com/parents-ban-kid-from-cod4-kid-runs-away-earns-no-perks-108609.phtml). The children that escape obviously have trouble making it out on their own - if they go to a charity, that charity will attempt to take them back to their parents, given that their parents aren't child molesters, serial killers, and whatnot (which they aren't, necessarily).

That's great for your dad, but not all people are like your dad.

Children may hate their parents, but if you ask them whether they want to leave, they'll say no. How does this differ from government? Simple, government coerce

http://www.destructoid.com/parents-ban-kid-from-cod4-kid-runs-away-earns-no-perks-108609.phtml

In that scenario, consequences matters not. If the thief spent money on funding al qaeda, and Bill Gates was fine with it, I'd be fine with it (although I'd question why Bill Gates was ok with it).

Ah, that's the difference, because we know the things that terrorist group does to people, and I wouldn't think it's moral for either Bill Gates, or the thief, to fund such a terrorist group. Please, try to listen to yourself - I'm not sure if this is exactly what you mean. You'd be fine with people funding terrorist groups, if those people chose to fund them in corroboration with their will? Terrorist groups kill people. Come on, again, you have to look at the entire scenario, and that also includes the consequences. Then you weigh things out. You don't leave anything out.

I don't see a problem with it tbh. He didn't initiate force, his actions were voluntary... Yet, you claim, that it is sometimes moral to initiate force? That's insane! A guy that helps people to get laid is immoral, but the guy who points guns at people with the intention of bringing about a 'majorly moral' outcome is championed?

Okay, but I'm sorry, I see a problem with it, and so would MANY others. "Treating a few cancer patients for the sole intent of coaxing a hot nurse into having sex with you." And you see why I claim morality is subjective now?

How do you differentiate the cases in which it is correct, and not correct?

Similar to the way you conclude something is moral/immoral.

Let's take this very simple one. Stealing from one rich person. Giving the money to 100 poor people.

Stealing from the rich person is immoral, if you disagree, then you have no respect for property rights. Giving money to 100 people is, sure, moral. We've broken it down, part a is immoral, part a, moral. The totality of the action is immoral. You have a scientific theory. The first 90% is true, the last 10% is false. The theory is false, it will fail peer-review. What you advocate is violence and good intentions. It was trialed with communism, they had the best of intentions, and look what happened. Hell, why don't you sell all you have, go to an african country that is in poverty, and help them with your first-aid knowledge, and so on? That would bring about a majorly moral scenario, and you can initiate it voluntarily yourself. So, we have a non-coerced action with great consequences. Why don't you do it? Why do you instead advocate the use of coercion to achieve great consequences, when you yourself can achieve great consequences without force?

Typical, forcing people to give to charity without giving to charity yourself when you can. Initiating force on people to achieve positive outcomes, when you can voluntarily achieve positive outcomes yourself.

Science looks for objectivity - morals are subjective. It wouldn't be hard for me to convince you of my viewpoint (or vice-versa) if they were objective now, would it? What you're saying is a big example of the either/or fallacy - even though the peer-review of a moral issue (not a scientific one) cannot recognize subjectivity, you're still allowing it to judge something as moral/immoral. Science is not appropriate here.

No. Nutrition deals with health. Whether or not you agree with the facts science have discovered about nutrition, if you take 500,000 UI of vitamin A, you will suffer the consequences. Nutrition has principles, but the actions people take are indeed different. For example, you need a sufficient intake of let's say vitamin C. Some people have vitamin C deficiency, and thus need more. Some people have too much vitamin C, so they need less. Principle: you need x vitamin C. Action: Increase or Decrease Vitamin C intake. It's subjective on the second level, but it's based on the principles which are objective.

What? So if you have no nutrition, you won't die? I think not. Nutrition is a need - just like how water is a need. I already agreed that that its principle (essentially a tool for survival) is objective. For water, of course, there is an upper limit to how much water you can take - but this depends on many factors. Those values given for the vitamins change with time - if they were objective, they should remain. Why is that? Because some people are more tolerant to vitamins than others - and eventually one person takes that upper dosage and notices that nothing bad has happened to them. Then they study everything again. But I don't have to explain this - you agreed that the second part is subjective, so you should agree to what I was saying before then. I was saying that morality deals with values - what we view as good or bad. All your statement is saying is that we need values - as that's as objective as nutrition gets. After that, nutrition is subjective - and that's true for morality as well, because when we try to determine our values, it's based on WHAT WE THINK is good/bad. Your statement was correct, but it just makes morality even appear more subjective. It's like me saying that Lady Gaga is as sexy as Ellen Degeneres, when Ellen Degeneres isn't really that sexy at all.

Don't forget what your statement was - 'morality is just as objective as nutrition.' Nutrition isn't so objective - just the fact that we need it to survive is. Compare the analogy to morality now - we need values, but what determines which values we accept, and which we don't? What we think. Subjectivity. Nice quote, but it doesn't help your argument on the objectivity of morality.

If whatever I think is moral, then can we not both be right at the same time?

Why do people debate morality to great measures?

I think I've explained this above.

Not trying to be mean, but I don't think you read it well enough.

Reality is not subject to the whims of someone. A colour is blue when it's wavelength is x. The fact that the color blind person cannot perceive such a wavelength does not change reality, it's only his perception.

The wavelength exists. But what's to say that the wavelength doesn't correspond to red instead of blue? Is it just because MOST OF US see it as blue, that we must conclude there's obviously something wrong with Sean's eyes? That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. You're still in the same hole. Perhaps our perception is wrong? Why must our perception that the sky is blue be the correct one? What makes us conclude that Sean's perception of a given wavelength is incorrect?

You gave no such example where the initiation of force is justified.

You didn't ask for the initiation of force. Now you're changing your sentences to coax the argument in your direction? Come on, your original statement is clear. You asked me if I believed that sometimes pointing a gun to force someone to do something is justified on certain occasions. You even used the word 'certain'.

Anyways, irregardless of you bringing something new, I have given an example now where the initiation of force is justified (for me) - the naked man running on the street.

I structured it as a slippery slope, I agree.

Okay, sorry if I appeared mean in that context.

You missed what I edited in.

Can you please put it here?

Right, but businesses are forced to register under the government if they want to sell 99% of goods or services. The question becomes what justifies the governments initiation of force in this regard?

This is off the point though, as we're talking about you now - the citizen. We're tracing things too back - if this was the case, we can trace back very far: we don't deserve to live in our country, because we are not the ones who founded it. In any case, all you asked for was tangible evidence of agreement - not if it was the only thing you could agree on. Now, as a citizen, the available businesses have already agreed to paying part of your income as taxes. Some of these business may have even existed before you did. They have signed contracts, which show the TANGIBLE AGREEMENT that they will pay taxes through their EMPLOYEES' SALARIES. You register yourself under the terms and conditions (which explain that an amount of your salary will be taken as tax fees) of a certain business, and sign a contract, agreeing to be an EMPLOYEE. There's your tangible agreement. You asked for it - I gave it to you.

Yea, so they can be taxed. Why tax, social contract. It all comes back to that.

No, it controls things like counterfeiting business names (trademarks), monopolies, etc.

Why? Short answer please.

Haha, okay. Read above when I spoke about infrastructure.

Is initiating force on someone for disagreements in belief immoral? Please don't say it depends...

But doesn't it depend? If I believe it's alright to run naked on the street, and perhaps, excuse me for the graphic image, masturbate publicly on the street, you don't think some force is needed to stop said person with their 'weird' beliefs? After all, he's not really initiating force, just doing his own 'thing'.

Perhaps religion should also be illegal.

This presumes religion is immoral. I will not go into that debate because we know that will never end. If you believe religion is immoral given its entire scenario, then based on what I said, it should be illegal - although I did use this phrase: some laws are based on morality. There can be exceptions. Always make room for bending the rules!

The free-market is not an instant fix. Besides, public education doesn't work. America has tried for years, and years, they've pumped money into it, they've done x, y, z. It sucks. The Private schools on the other hand are doing a better job.

Also, think of it this way, if the government did not provide the service, private enterprise will. It's what always happens, where there is demand, there is always supply (unless there's regulation in the way). Will the price end up being higher? Maybe, especially if he government operated at a natural monopoly. But people would be paying less taxes right?

Yes, I see.

I know what you're saying. The first thing to realize is, some people just aren't suited to 13 years of education, agree? We can teach them language, basic arithmatic, etc, etc within the first let's say up till their 13 years of age. After that, some people just aren't suited to it (they can if they want, but it's like someone with no musical ability trying to play music).

Second, the price of education would actually decrease, there are stats but I really cannot be bothered to find them. Essentially, what tends to happen is that high quality education becomes really cheap (since in a free market taxation would be minimal, peoples income increases anyway).

Thirdly, on the presupposition that truly poor people couldn't afford education, charity could fill the rest. People are benevolent.

Lastly, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people. Without public education, the will of the people, that will being that they want all people educated will still prevail.

Okay, if you have statistics showing the higher education prices will decrease, then that's fine. I only disagree with the point of charities - I don't believe people are THAT benevolent. Don't call me a misanthrope now!

Correct. But, let's be serious, parents would rarely not send kids to school.

True.

Infrastructure would be private, and not necessarily expensive. Will it be a bit more expensive? Sure. But there would be almost no taxation, which means your income would increase drastically, more than what would cover the cost of the infrastructure.

There's something crucial that we're missing - we never paid for infrastructure in the first place. Now, we'll have the choice to voluntarily chip in to make a new road, bridge, etc. People are greedy - maybe not enough people will chip in. Maybe there won't be enough money for the infrastructure. Or maybe some people would have to pay great amounts for the infrastructure because they NEED it, which obviously wouldn't be fair. The thing is, even if the infrastructure is controlled by a private business, it still poses a problem for that private business - how the hell would they make any profit? Unless, with a true free market, we have to pay every time we use a highway, bridge, etc. If that's the case, I don't want a true free market.

I think that the underlying problem is the existence of the social contract. I don't think it exists, the fundamental reason why I reject government, since the social contract is supposed to legitimize the initiation of force by government.

So, perhaps provide a proper logical argument with premises leading to a conclusion for the social contract? The burden of proof is on you to prove it permits the initiation of force by the government.

I used other methods than the social contract to 'prove' that the initiation of force is permitted in certain situations. This argument didn't solely rely on it.

There are evidences of us submitting some of our freedoms for protection of our rights. An easy example is the fact that we generally do not kill/steal from others, hoping that the government would reserve the right that others do not do the same to us - and the government does try to do this through police, jail, the law, etc.

This corroborates the social contract as evidence. I cannot prove it - much like how I cannot prove the theory of evolution, even though it may obviously be correct. I just point to the many evidences it has. If you want to reject it, fine, but I've given tangible evidences of agreement now. That was all you asked for in the beginning.

Decreasing storage space on the server =,= This thing is 20 pages; 7000 words =,=

I apologize. I've been home these couple of days because I'm feeling quite sick. Perhaps in a few days I'll reply less as often, but I'm not sure if there's anything to stop me from writing a lot!

 

[malakadang]

You should read the last part first (again haha).

I did not consent to be born into a family that's not as rich as Bill Gates' family, there is no filial contract. I'm a slave to my parents. That's the conclusion I get from your reasoning.

(a) You did not have the capacity to consent, as, you did not exist. (b) You do not have the capacity to consent, even as a 1 day old, because, your brain does not have the relevant structures. (c) There is no initiation of force.

What did I say? You leave first (using your passport), transfer your money to a private bank in a different country, then terminate your citizenship. Getting rid of the passport is the last step.

Ok, but the government can prevent you from leaving by cancelling your passport, or something? Maybe it's not crime, but they, in principle, could, yes?

I still do agree to it, did I not say 'I agree'? But property rights within a state - not that I can own any property I'd like. And why do I expect to own property within a state?

This is where I vehmently disagree, and we need to go back to the cavemen. Did the caveman own himself? He surely did. Did he own his club that he crafted with his labour. He surely must. It carries forward today, it's just the state is in the way. You've already agreed in part to property rights by saying a person owns themselves. It's just a logical extention that they own the effects of their labour. If you say a person owns themselves, but not the effects of their labour, well, it's tantamount to slavery know?

You're right. But don't raise your expectations. We all have unfulfilled 'autonomous' wills.

The expectation is not that bad though. It's logically attainable, and arguably better.

Barter isn't what you think it is. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter#Limitations_of_a_barter_economy

I agree it has it's limitations, but so does fiat currency: http://mises.org/daily/6065/The-Fiasco-of-Fiat-Money

Also, exactly, it's subjective theory of value. Subjective. VERY subjective. For all it's worth, I could say my t-shirt that's been signed by Cristiano Ronaldo is worth more than another person's house. He agrees to that, takes my t-shirt, doesn't want it anymore, tries to sell it for another house, but no one accepts. What happened? He was scammed.

On the presupposition he was scammed, it was his fault. He should be accountable for his actions. Life is a risk. He took a risk. He got scammed, because of his voluntary actions, that were non-coerced. It's like a gambler crying about his losses, you knew the risks, and you still gambled.

Oh, perfect! If I'm not mistaken, doesn't a true free market open the door to monopolies? If I understand you properly when you say 'true', this type of free market means that it is not controlled in any way by a government. What would stop monopoly then? After all, governments are there to prevent monopolies (even though they are essentially monopolies themselves - off the point). Without a government, you have nothing to prevent monopoly. Now, would monopoly necessarily occur? It really depends on the business. Nothing would be absolute - a business would never exist solely without any competitors. But it could happen that none of its competitors could even come close to beating it. The government, on the other hand, would prevent this from happening.

No. Firstly, if you object to monopolies, then you must object to a government? Let's say however you justify governments special pleading.

Second - A 5 minute video, very succinct: [YOUTUBE]nOBD6v8g1F4[/YOUTUBE]

Resources are limited. There's no precision by using currencies such as gold. Paper money is easy to produce. The population continues to increase - work is increasing. We create more paper money to stabilize prices. Etcetera.

Also, this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter#Limitations_of_a_barter_economy

Fiat currency is backed by nothing. You call it stability, but all you're doing is devaluing the currency.

The middle east is only around 16 countries. If you want one, you got it - Lebanon. Don't forget, there are areas within a country that do not pay taxes, but of course are not well recognized by the government. This does not mean the entire country does not pay taxes. Such is the case with Lebanon - the government only functions within cities such as Beirut, Tripoli, etc. but taxes are charged in such areas.

Alright. By chance, how much would an average person make there?

Missed the point, and you agree to terms and conditions. AGREE. Just saying you agree is enough. There is tangible evidence of the agreement, though. There are documents you have to sign before opening a bank account. Read: http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-open-bank-account-7-steps-to.html

Ok, is it possible for a bank to have its business model where you do not pay interest tax (or whatever the relevant tax is)?

You didn't understand. When you register yourself UNDER a business. As in, when you work for a new company. Not when you open a new business.

Can you work without registering yourself under a business?

No! There is no mentioning of the social contract WHATSOEVER. You asked me to give you tangible evidence that you agreed. The business has agreed to paying taxes already FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES' SALARIES, and YOU AGREED TO BE AN EMPLOYEE. This is ALL written down on paper. This is all you asked of me - for tangible evidence. Whether the business didn't want to register itself under the government is irrelevant to your question because it's already been done.

A business must pay all relevant taxes, period.

So you agree. Now trace back the argument, and see how this came about.

That's always been my position.

And what makes you say that?

Trying to cut down words so, since it's being discussed elsewhere, no need to repeat.

I told you that you initially leave. Where's the argument? Perhaps you're reading quickly - I understand, the posts are long, and I tend to read quickly as I well.

Again, what if the government prevents you from leaving by cancelling your passport or something? It can in principle do this, can it not?

Your passport. You drop it after you leave.

k.

If you don't respect the rules of a school, you're forcefully expelled, and obviously asked not to come back. Said student didn't initiate force. Simply coming to school naked could get you expelled.

If the school is a private institution, there's nothing wrong with that. A business can make any rule it wants.

Cherry-picking. Welfare in Sweden is not the same as welfare in the US. In any case, this is a blog. I'll deal with the facts later. We'll take a look at statistics on welfare later in this argument.

I'm more than happy to argue that, in the long run, welfare is (a) economically undesirable, and (b) socially undesirable. That should qualify it for a 'majorly immoral' system.

Irrelevant - you signed it. You asked for tangible evidence of agreement. Here it is. Now you're trying to go backwards. We can go backwards as far as we like, but would it get us anywhere?

The point is, the initiation of force is everywhere. It's because of government you must do something. A business wouldn't force you to pay tax unless they had to, it's just not good business, and it's a waste of their time. The government is the cause behind all this.

Offering those services would make you a criminal because you ARE affecting other lives. Don't take these jobs lightly - many people die at the mercy of drug dealers, and perform many negative actions (theft) because of them.

Drug dealers are in the blackmarket. The embargo is the cause of it. Look at prohibition. Also, it's a victimless crime, so, you wouldn't be affecting other lives if it was truly victimless, correct? Besides, what is interaction between 2 people any of your business? If they affect you via negative externalities, sue them, wait, it's a frivolous law suit...

Now by using prostitutes/drugs, would you be a criminal? Of course not. Come on, how come we hear stories on the news of teenagers taking drugs, where they actually give the teenager's name? Surely if it was a major crime, the police would immediately be at said teenager's doorstep to take him/her to jail after watching the news. This would mean that the teenager would prevent putting his/her name on public television in the first place - but we know that this doesn't happen. Now ask yourself, do you ever hear a drug dealer's name being said on TV?

Strawman. This doesn't address whether it legitimises a ban (initiation on force) over interaction/trade between 2 people.

Problem - we're assuming that what I'm advocating is immoral.

Just making the statement that Hitler would've loved people that support the status quo.

Yeah, I agree. And yes, I'm not advocating a true free market. More on that.

k.

Okay, but it's free. You're missing something with a free market - who controls the infrastructure? No one would take the burden of actually making new roads, bridges, etc. because no one would pay for them to do so since they belong to EVERYBODY, and there's no profit to be made. Now, we can ask everybody to pay - but in a free market, I can just refuse to pay. In fact, we probably all would refuse to pay, except a select few. You may agree that you would pay for the sake of the argument, but I'm sure a numerous amount of people won't pay a single penny. This means either the people that NEED the improved infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) would have to pay A LOT higher than what they were paying before through taxes, or there's no improvement in infrastructure. So how can we improve our infrastructure without a government taking taxes from us? Think about it. I don't believe a true free market would work. Of course where I live isn't a true free market - it's just that if you want to have a business without registering it, you can. But in the city, where the infrastructure is great (note that this is only in the city) taxes are still being paid. But, again, this is only in the city (and they get 24 hour electricity). For the rest of us outside the city, we don't pay taxes, but we have bad infrastructure, and barely any electricity.

Roads have existed before government. You say there's no profit to be made, yet for charity there is also no profit to be made. Unless of course you consider the ability to use a road, bridge, etc. profit. This book deals with the 'roads' part, which can be extrapolated very well: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf (Table of contents are there).

Another: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Public_goods

You're saying the free market cannot produce those public goods because it attracts the free-rider problem, and businesses cannot profit. Firstly, are you sure businesses can't profit? Tolls? Ring a bell on what the government does.

And saying something mean to the bully was initiation of force by me, as the bully wasn't attacking me, yet you still agreed to the scenario. What's different?

I see what you're saying, but you are defending the person; also, these analogies are exceptionally different, so your analogy is very weak at best, for starters war = actual force, talking = on the border. There is a problem with the non-aggression principle, and it is what constitutes as force. It's a problem, I agree, but it's really nit picking at things (which is fine). But, it's like saying that, after an outbreak of an incredibly virulent and contagious disease, the doctors say how do we cure the flu... Your concern is not the flu, it's the god damn disease, much like the concern is not what constitutes force (it's a valid concern), rather, stopping the initiation of force. I do admit that there is ambiguity in scenarios like this.

There are mixed views on probably all of the scenarios I'm giving - but I want to know your view. After all, I'm arguing with you.

Sure, don't forget, I'm not well read, so I'm probably not doing justice to my position.

Ah, but technically, this is similar to the scenario above! I'm initiating force - after all, I'm not involved personally with the conflict at all now, considering the fact that this person is not my friend, but simply a bystander. Now didn't you say that it's immoral to initiate force? Or is it okay in this context? If you agree to the latter, then you agree to a lot of points I've said about taking the context into consideration.

Not really, you're not initiating force at all. The person is a person. Friend/bystander, these are abstract concepts. I don't view it as initiating force, you're merely protecting someone's rights, which doesn't qualify as initiating force. Remember, initiating. Are you really initiating something when you defend someone from a robber? Think of it this way: who started it. Imagine, I went up and robbed someone, and someone else came in and stopped me. The police arrested us both. Could I (The thief) say, he (bystander) started it? No, of course not.

I disagree. Force is not always wrong. You have to look at the actions and consequences.

I will get on this, it's about morality and logic.

Either/or fallacy: you're assuming either I agree to this statement, or I don't. I told you, I agree to it sometimes - it depends on the context. I gave you an example where it appeared justified to me. You didn't do anything to refute it.

The proposition is either true, or untrue. You have a third option, which is to abstain judgement. Which example was that by the way?

Again, it's not a bifurcation fallacy. The question was: Do you believe x. That's not fallacious, at all.

I gave an example on this already - guy running naked on the street.

Negative externalities; sue him. In a voluntaryist society, there could be rules that everyone voluntarily agrees to, which prohibits this sort of behaviour. Again though, people rarely run around naked on the street. If you think someone is violating your rights, you are well within your rights to sue them (obviously after other steps such as talking to them, and perhaps recommending a psychiatrist).

This is like judging me after just meeting me. I told you, when I make a decision, I encompass EVERYTHING. Happiness, morality, the actions taken, the consequences received, etc. If anything, I would call myself fair.


You ignore the consequences. I've given you an example where that's wrong - the hot nurse (that sounded sillier than I thought it would).

Haha. I'll address this when I talk about logic and morality at the end.

Ah, really? I'm not sure if it's like this in America. If it is, I don't agree with it

Here's actually an interesting story. A couple years ago, there was a catastrophic bushfire in Victoria (I think). There was a guy, who, prior to the bushfire, decided to clear land, etc, for the purpose of preventing a fire. The council fined him, a big fine. The bushfire came along, his house, was the only/ or one of very few, to remain standing. It's just ridiculous that you need permission to chop down your own trees to protect your own god damn house =,=

They're expanding.

I'd argue they're not very productive, at least, not as productive as private enterprise would be, but it doesn't matter.

No, you're getting lots of things mixed up. First, I told you, I take everything into consideration - it's only fair. Second, I don't agree to objective morality - I agreed to the premise of your argument so I can initialize an argument with you, and your premise was that some things like 'control' and 'force' are immoral PERIOD. So I went based on that premise, and added lots of obvious ones in there, like killing, lying, etc. But of course I don't believe in objective morals - I've said numerous times they're subjective. Now, do you reject objective morals (in the sense that I'm talking - control, force, killing, etc.) as well? It negates a big part of your argument - that the law cannot be moral because it controls people (by forcing them to do things). Don't forget - that statement you said started the entire debate. You claimed force is always immoral. If it's always immoral, that means objectively, force is immoral. I don't think so.

I'll get to this later with logic and morality.

You changed my example. Read it again. For me to say sugar is sweet - is that nonsensical? Would it not help in a debate if I wanted to make my unsweetened, sugar-free cookies taste more sweet for children? "Here, add some sugar, maybe that would help it become more sweet!" "No, we're not adding sugar, Ben. Just because you think it's sweet, doesn't mean it would make the cookies more sweet for the children."

Perception of reality is subjective. Reality itself is objective however. Sweetness refers to a specific phenomenon, and it gets interpreted by the brain differently. That doesn't mean the phenomenon is subjective (unless you think reality is subjective...). When you ask the question: is it sweet (or a question like that), you are asking for an answer that is based on someones perception, which is subjective from person to person.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that even the most obvious things are subjective. What do you think - do you think the sky is blue?

Yes. Is the sky blue? Yes. The colour of the sky is what it is. The veracity of my answer depends on whether it conforms to reality, namely, the way things are. If a blind person comes a long and say hang on, the sky is black, he's wrong. Yes, his perception of it is black, but in reality, the sky is not black. Reality is not subject to one's whims, emotions, it exists objectively, and we have a consciousness to perceive it. Some times though, it is fallible, see illusions.

Oh, so wait! Isn't that an appeal to popularity fallacy? Just because nearly everyone thinks the action is justified, Susie's opinion doesn't count? I mean, if I'm not wrong, a good majority of people were against homosexuality, black people, etc. It's a good thing we listened to the minority in those cases though!

It is, but it's a moral fact, unless you are one fucked cookie, that the holocaust was morally wrong (I can justify it, but there's no need to, since you agree with the moral fact).

Face it - morality is subjective. A simple example is a baby lying. All babies do it. Yet as they grow to be toddlers, their parents tell them that lying is bad, so they cut down on the lying, because they think it's immoral, and feel bad afterwards. Of course, later they learn that lying in some cases is okay (by looking at the entire scenario), but the fact of the matter is that the idea they had when they were a toddler, that lying is bad, was simply put into their heads. The same thing applies to stealing - babies believe that they own everything. If they could steal property, they would. Yet even you said we have the natural right to own property. This is all heavily researched, and I've done a presentation on this before of why I believe babies are evil (I was joking of course, but if you want to see it, I can send it to you - it's pretty funny).

I'll get onto this with logic and morality.

This is why a lot of your laws, fallacies, etc. simply cannot apply, because those things tend to apply for absolution. Morality is not absolution. What may be moral today, may not be moral in the future. Wasn't there a point in time where it was considered wrong for a woman to show excessive skin? Look at them now.

Certain moral principles are never changing though. murder, theft, rape, which all come under the initiation of force. I'll get onto this a bit more later.

What? Read the example again. The police initiated force. The man running naked did not initiate force. I explicitly stated that.

You can clearly avoid the situation; don't look at the man. Besides, in a voluntaryist society, everything would be privately own, so you could haul the man off for trespassing. I hardly think the man is initiating force anyway, though there may be negative externalities which you, arguably could sue him for (frivolous law suit though...), the situation is easily avoided, correct?

In certain cases, it is. Look at the example of the man running naked again. Force does not mean put a gun to someone's head. That only happens when the person breaking the law is being extremely defiant, or threatens to kill the policemen. Follow what I said (the sentence before this one) with its context - look at the example again.

Explained above.

Yeah, that was the point, that one is greater than the other, so if both were to be in court, the slave master would be the one punished (bending the rules, fairness, etc.).

Right, in my opinion, the slave would go free due to the mitigating circumstances, namely, he was a slave. That still doesn't mean trespass is wrong, it just means that due to the mitigating circumstances he won't be punished for it.

Missing the point. You're comparing slavery to the government. With slavery, you don't have any hope of getting permission, or that hope is very little. With the government, you do. So comparing slavery in the sense you are trying to elicit to the government and its citizens is not as valid as you think.

This is really semantics from both of us; coercion, slavery, initiating force, you're forcing people to do stuff.

Ouch, you have it wrong! And you stated it's a fact (the second one), too! All I need to prove it wrong is a good set of statistics that show the exact opposite of what you're saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfar...#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare

Fair.

The last few sentences are the exact opposite mindset of a consequentialist. I'm just being fair. I look at the consequences, the actions that led to those consequences, the morality of all actions in their given context, etc. This is fairness. I'm not looking at one thing, and you know that, as you obviously saw my last few sentences because you replied to them. Looking at one thing is making a judgement of the whole based on a part. I refuse to do that.

I'll get to that on morality and logic at the end.

Keeping a kid indoors before 10 is not bad parenting. Being protective of your children is not bad parenting. Children want to have fun. They hate it when their parents do things like this, and they escape. I mean, look at this, some of the cases are silly (http://www.destructoid.com/parents-ban-kid-from-cod4-kid-runs-away-earns-no-perks-108609.phtml). The children that escape obviously have trouble making it out on their own - if they go to a charity, that charity will attempt to take them back to their parents, given that their parents aren't child molesters, serial killers, and whatnot (which they aren't, necessarily).

Coercing your kids is bad parenting, namely, hitting them. Punishment only tells kids what not to do, you need to reinforce them, that's what tells them what to do. Reinforcement always > punishment. Anyways, there will always be bad parents, laws haven't stopped this, and I think it's immoral to try and intervene by initiating force. The way to solve this problem in my opinion is through education. Educating, good, moral, intelligent, productive, virtuous citizens which will go onto reproduce, and rear the next generation is the way to go.

Ah, that's the difference, because we know the things that terrorist group does to people, and I wouldn't think it's moral for either Bill Gates, or the thief, to fund such a terrorist group. Please, try to listen to yourself - I'm not sure if this is exactly what you mean. You'd be fine with people funding terrorist groups, if those people chose to fund them in corroboration with their will? Terrorist groups kill people. Come on, again, you have to look at the entire scenario, and that also includes the consequences. Then you weigh things out. You don't leave anything out.

It's not the initiation of force if both parties consent, that's the point I was trying to make. If someone was funding a terrorist group, society would severely negatively sanction them, in a voluntaryist society, they would be sanctioned so severely that there qualtiy of life would decrease below that of middle class (voluntaryist system is very different). Morally, should Bill Gates have done that? No. Politically, do we have the right to initiate force? No. This comes to logic, and morality, which is almost coming up... The problem I find when arguing about this topic is that morality and politics is so easily equivocated, and conflated, I've done it, you've done it, it's just a nightmare because they are entirely separate concepts. One is what we should do. The other is what can we do to people (how should we govern people). Funnily enough, Bill Gates already gives money to a terrorist organization; the government, responsible for more deaths than al-Qaeda, and the Taliban put together!

Okay, but I'm sorry, I see a problem with it, and so would MANY others. "Treating a few cancer patients for the sole intent of coaxing a hot nurse into having sex with you." And you see why I claim morality is subjective now?

I'll deal with this in logic and morality below.

Similar to the way you conclude something is moral/immoral.

Answer the question, without being sneaky =,= What is your moral standard; how do you evaluate what is moral or not?

Science looks for objectivity - morals are subjective. It wouldn't be hard for me to convince you of my viewpoint (or vice-versa) if they were objective now, would it? What you're saying is a big example of the either/or fallacy - even though the peer-review of a moral issue (not a scientific one) cannot recognize subjectivity, you're still allowing it to judge something as moral/immoral. Science is not appropriate here.

You've barely made a case for subjective morality, and I'll show you why you really haven't.

What? So if you have no nutrition, you won't die? I think not. Nutrition is a need - just like how water is a need. I already agreed that that its principle (essentially a tool for survival) is objective. For water, of course, there is an upper limit to how much water you can take - but this depends on many factors. Those values given for the vitamins change with time - if they were objective, they should remain. Why is that? Because some people are more tolerant to vitamins than others - and eventually one person takes that upper dosage and notices that nothing bad has happened to them. Then they study everything again. But I don't have to explain this - you agreed that the second part is subjective, so you should agree to what I was saying before then. I was saying that morality deals with values - what we view as good or bad. All your statement is saying is that we need values - as that's as objective as nutrition gets. After that, nutrition is subjective - and that's true for morality as well, because when we try to determine our values, it's based on WHAT WE THINK is good/bad. Your statement was correct, but it just makes morality even appear more subjective. It's like me saying that Lady Gaga is as sexy as Ellen Degeneres, when Ellen Degeneres isn't really that sexy at all.

You need nutrients, not nutrition, there's a very big difference. Also, if someone said nutrition as a disciple is objective, you would say yes, that is because in order to achieve a healthy life style, one must obey the principles that has been discovered through nutrition. This is because reality is objective, if you think eating cake won't make you fat, you're sorely mistaken, and reality will not alter it for you. Now, you can say that what each person should do with regards to nutrition is subjective. That's fine, but it's principles are objective. The same is said for morality, and it seems that you agree. We need to discover the principles before we know what we should do, like nutrtion, we need to discover the principles before we know what we should eat in order to live a healthy life, and in the case of morality, a moral life.

Also your analogy with ellen and lady gaga deals with aesthetics, not morality.

Let's go with your system, we look at everything. A man asks, how he should live his life, and another man says, here's the system, look at the actions, the consequences, and so on. So a man thinks, o, should he steal from that person. Well, I'm sure you'll agree that the action of stealing, with nothing else to go by is immoral. The man then goes, o, well, it may be immoral, but maybe the consequences could make it 'majorly moral' (assume the man is starving). So he begins to take into account the consequences, but how does he do this? How can he predict the consequences? How does he know how the other guy will react? He doesn't, he will essentially be playing a guessing game. With all the examples you've given, you've applied morality after the event has occurred, and the consequences are known. At the time, when thinking about what we should do, we cannot possible know the consequences, so, an action we think is moral at the time due to our poor calculation, and nature of not knowing the future could actually be immoral in hindsight. So, how do we reconcile this?

Don't forget what your statement was - 'morality is just as objective as nutrition.' Nutrition isn't so objective - just the fact that we need it to survive is. Compare the analogy to morality now - we need values, but what determines which values we accept, and which we don't? What we think. Subjectivity. Nice quote, but it doesn't help your argument on the objectivity of morality.

So, what we think determines what is moral? That has 2 implications. One, that reality is subjective, providing morality exists as a 'thing' in nature. Or Two, morality doesn't exist. In which case, we are still stuck with the question: how should we live our life.

Why do people debate morality to great measures?

To find the truth. The truth is objective though, right?

The wavelength exists. But what's to say that the wavelength doesn't correspond to red instead of blue? Is it just because MOST OF US see it as blue, that we must conclude there's obviously something wrong with Sean's eyes? That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. You're still in the same hole. Perhaps our perception is wrong? Why must our perception that the sky is blue be the correct one? What makes us conclude that Sean's perception of a given wavelength is incorrect?

O come on, this is pure semantics. Red refers to x wavelength. Blue refers to y wavelength. We define blue as that wavelength, which our perception tells us. That wavelength exists objectively in reality (you already accept this). You're saying what if y is x instead? That's just silly, we've defined things, we refer to the same phenomenon, the only difference is the definition/semantics.

It's like going into a foreign place, and saying, that's a table. Other people label it a chair. The difference is semantics, you are talking about the same thing!

You didn't ask for the initiation of force. Now you're changing your sentences to coax the argument in your direction? Come on, your original statement is clear. You asked me if I believed that sometimes pointing a gun to force someone to do something is justified on certain occasions. You even used the word 'certain'.

The initiation of force was always my position.

Anyways, irregardless of you bringing something new, I have given an example now where the initiation of force is justified (for me) - the naked man running on the street.

Dealt with.

Can you please put it here?

"Also, you're arguing that the social contract legitimizes the laws imposed on us by the government to govern us? But does it legitimize all laws? If the answer is no, it doesn't allow all laws, then we must carefully inspect the laws we deem are illegitimate. The purpose of government was to protect our liberties, NOT feed the poor, or tell people how to live. I fail to see how making x, y, and z illegal preserves our liberties. Courts were initially designed to resolve disputes by enforcing law. If an interaction between 2 people is voluntary, what dispute is there to resolve, see prostitution. The Courts are just enforcing the law, and abandoning their primary purpose, a way of resolving disputes. No liberties are being violated, when prostitution occurs, and it is arguable whether it is immoral. However, to say that because of a contract that is neither legal, or exists, that two people who mutually consent to enter into a morally ambiguous action should be punished by being thrown in a state sanctioned rape dungeon (prison) is bizarre. Might as well throw people in jail for believing on Communism because the theory manifests into practice again there will be chaos, as there was last time.

We also have to talk in concretes. The government is just composed of people. Let's look at the elements of a social contract. It occurs within a geographical area, hence there are different countries. Let's make a geographical area up, my house, and the land I have on it. It is unilateral insofar that citizens of the government must obey the rules. So, within my land, I have certain rules (or laws), and they have punishments. The other one is that it is implied, there is no contractual agreement, legal or otherwise, it doesn't even exist as a concrete, it's just implied based on my actions. That is what the elements of a social contract are (As far as I know). Now, you keep using the 'love it or leave it argument'. If I'm in country x (Geographical location), and using it's services, then I've implied by consent (implied consent), to follow it's rules (unilateral). Let's break that down. If you're on my land (Geographical location), and using my services (perhaps I have a lake, and you're drinking from it because you're thirsty; you were hiking), that implies your consent to the rules/laws of my land because you are using my services (implied consent), and this occurs unilaterally (my rules, my land). Problem? "

This is off the point though, as we're talking about you now - the citizen. We're tracing things too back - if this was the case, we can trace back very far: we don't deserve to live in our country, because we are not the ones who founded it. In any case, all you asked for was tangible evidence of agreement - not if it was the only thing you could agree on. Now, as a citizen, the available businesses have already agreed to paying part of your income as taxes. Some of these business may have even existed before you did. They have signed contracts, which show the TANGIBLE AGREEMENT that they will pay taxes through their EMPLOYEES' SALARIES. You register yourself under the terms and conditions (which explain that an amount of your salary will be taken as tax fees) of a certain business, and sign a contract, agreeing to be an EMPLOYEE. There's your tangible agreement. You asked for it - I gave it to you.

The initiation of force is the reason for it's existence. In order for someone to set up a business, they're forced to pay taxes. In order for them to hire someone, they are forced to tax them in a contract. You are coerced into being tax. You're just avoiding what underpins everything: the initiation of force by the government through laws. How about I set up a business, without registering, and hire people without giving putting taxes in the contract. You will be locked up, everyone would be. There is no other choice for you.

No, it controls things like counterfeiting business names (trademarks), monopolies, etc.

It controls a monopoly by (a) being a monopoly itself (b) sometimes entering the market as a natural monopoly... Also, trademarks/patents, they're ridiculous, but we don't need to get into an argument about that. It all comes back to the social contract, it's primary purpose was to legitimise the governments initiation of force on its citizens. You need to prove that (by proof, I mean logical proof, not empirical proof).

But doesn't it depend? If I believe it's alright to run naked on the street, and perhaps, excuse me for the graphic image, masturbate publicly on the street, you don't think some force is needed to stop said person with their 'weird' beliefs? After all, he's not really initiating force, just doing his own 'thing'.

Above.

This presumes religion is immoral. I will not go into that debate because we know that will never end. If you believe religion is immoral given its entire scenario, then based on what I said, it should be illegal - although I did use this phrase: some laws are based on morality. There can be exceptions. Always make room for bending the rules!

Neither, also internal consistency is desirable...

Okay, if you have statistics showing the higher education prices will decrease, then that's fine. I only disagree with the point of charities - I don't believe people are THAT benevolent. Don't call me a misanthrope now!

Don't have the statistics on me, probably won't look for them. As for people not being that benevolent, well... I disagree, but no need to argue this point.

There's something crucial that we're missing - we never paid for infrastructure in the first place. Now, we'll have the choice to voluntarily chip in to make a new road, bridge, etc. People are greedy - maybe not enough people will chip in. Maybe there won't be enough money for the infrastructure. Or maybe some people would have to pay great amounts for the infrastructure because they NEED it, which obviously wouldn't be fair. The thing is, even if the infrastructure is controlled by a private business, it still poses a problem for that private business - how the hell would they make any profit? Unless, with a true free market, we have to pay every time we use a highway, bridge, etc. If that's the case, I don't want a true free market.

In the case of a road, there could be tolls; there already are. Or, in the case of a local town, everyone could chip in, if some people disagree, there could be a toll, charging them for access on the road. Also, people would negatively sanction someone that didn't have a valid reason to chip in, so there are numerous disadvantages to not chipping in because you're 'greedy'.

I used other methods than the social contract to 'prove' that the initiation of force is permitted in certain situations. This argument didn't solely rely on it.

Can you, or can you not provide a proper logical argument, with premises leading to a conclusion in favour of a social contract? That's how logic works.

There are evidences of us submitting some of our freedoms for protection of our rights. An easy example is the fact that we generally do not kill/steal from others, hoping that the government would reserve the right that others do not do the same to us - and the government does try to do this through police, jail, the law, etc.

Has it been effective? For thousands of years, thou shalt nots have tried to stop murder, theft, and so on. It' still around. A voluntaryist system would do a better job in my opinion. Namely, because the consequences of such actions is that you physically cannot function in society any more, because everyone boycotts trade with you, and since everything is privately owned, if you step outside your house, you will be removed for trespassing. Also, not killing/stealing is not evidence of giving up our rights...

This corroborates the social contract as evidence. I cannot prove it - much like how I cannot prove the theory of evolution, even though it may obviously be correct. I just point to the many evidences it has. If you want to reject it, fine, but I've given tangible evidences of agreement now. That was all you asked for in the beginning.

Not really...

Morality, and Logic (also relates to the social contract)
In rational discourse, what we are doing now, we use logic. How logic works is that premises lead to a conclusion. Engaging in rational discourse, and using logic implies an acceptance that you agree to this.

Logical arguments are strucutred (loosely, like this):

A therefore B
B therefore C
A therefore C

Invalid arguments are fallacies, but it is sound arguments that we are most interested in. A premise in a logical argument is true independent of the consequences. For example, we do not say gravity doesn't exist because we could fall down a flight of stairs... We don't say the meteor isn't heading for Earth because it will kill us... We simply don't do this. Consequences have no business in criticizing the veracity of a premise.

That said, there are consequences for accepting a premise (the consequence still apply if you don't accept it). If you agree that gravity exists, then you could fall down a flight of stairs because of it. This negative consequence doesn't invalidate the premise, it's just a consequence of the truth. The same applies for the meteor, the catastrophic consequence doesn't matter, the premise that a meteor is going to hit Earth is true.

What happens when we apply this to morality? Remember, we are using logic because this is a rational discussion, so should easily accept that consequences of the truth of a premise don't affect the truth of a premise itself. So, we have a premise, murder is good. You can say, if murder is good, then people would kill each other, and there would be chaos, therefore murder is not good. This is the same as saying gravity is incorrect because if it were true, I could fall down a flight of stairs... You are going about morality the wrong way if you are engaging in rational discourse. This applies to when you say you need to weigh up the consequences. You are saying that the truth of a premise is dependent on its consequences, it simply isn't.

Furthermore, to criticize the dealing with the consequences part, and your system where you evaluate everything. You've made the statement, but you haven't made a case. You cannot make a case that we should evaluate the consequences because look at the consequences. It's circular reasoning. You need to first justify why consequences are acceptable in morality, and have some special place when it comes to logic. Once you successfully do that, only then can you continue to use consequences, otherwise you are simply begging the question.

Finally, most of your arguments have essentially been about consequences, more specifically everything, where consequences are a large part. You need to:

1: Show why using consequences is able to discover what is moral; how we should act.
2: Show why consequences affect the veracity of a premise in morality, and not any other philosophical discipline such as epistemology.

Only then can you successfully justify your position. You simply cannot use consequences to evaluate morality without showing why morality can be evaluated by consequences.

I apologize. I've been home these couple of days because I'm feeling quite sick. Perhaps in a few days I'll reply less as often, but I'm not sure if there's anything to stop me from writing a lot!

It's ok haha, lucky I'm on school holidays, and it's been raining for no particular reason.

 

[Snoopchicken]

(a) You did not have the capacity to consent, as, you did not exist. (b) You do not have the capacity to consent, even as a 1 day old, because, your brain does not have the relevant structures. (c) There is no initiation of force.

You did not have the capacity to consent to live in a certain country. A slave born into a master's house did not have the capacity to consent living into his/her master's house. Etcetera.

Ok, but the government can prevent you from leaving by cancelling your passport, or something? Maybe it's not crime, but they, in principle, could, yes?

Only if you're a criminal. Which I don't see anything wrong with them cancelling your passport in such a case. Anyways, we're talking about a normal person, trying to avoid tax fees. You'll most likely have your passport.

This is where I vehmently disagree, and we need to go back to the cavemen. Did the caveman own himself? He surely did. Did he own his club that he crafted with his labour. He surely must. It carries forward today, it's just the state is in the way. You've already agreed in part to property rights by saying a person owns themselves. It's just a logical extention that they own the effects of their labour. If you say a person owns themselves, but not the effects of their labour, well, it's tantamount to slavery know?

Okay, if you disagree, then you don't mind your area being flooded with Mexicans, Arabs, or any other person in the entire world? Don't forget, they don't even need to speak your language.

The expectation is not that bad though. It's logically attainable, and arguably better.

I'm not sure about attainable. If it was attainable (true free market), then yes, arguably better. Note I'm not talking about social liberty. I disagree with that.

I agree it has it's limitations, but so does fiat currency: http://mises.org/daily/6065/The-Fiasco-of-Fiat-Money

Those limitations don't compare to barter.

On the presupposition he was scammed, it was his fault. He should be accountable for his actions. Life is a risk. He took a risk. He got scammed, because of his voluntary actions, that were non-coerced. It's like a gambler crying about his losses, you knew the risks, and you still gambled.

It is his fault - but the point is, he was still scammed. If we work with this mentality that everything can be subjectively priced, scamming would occur much more often. We can subjectively price our goods, sure, but not the way we pay for them. Think about it.

No. Firstly, if you object to monopolies, then you must object to a government? Let's say however you justify governments special pleading.

If a father watches porn, but prevents his child from watching porn, I don't see a problem. If the government is a monopoly in certain aspects, and prevents monopolies from happening, I don't see a problem. Note that I'm not generalizing.

Your video is hypothetical, but I enjoyed it. Fact of the matter, it CAN happen. He explains many situations but we're presuming what other companies would do. We're presuming that buying other companies will put you in debt. We're presuming that lowering our prices has to be below the profit margin - maybe lowering them so they're slightly above the profit margin is adequate to destroy competition. In any case, I never denied that competition CANNOT exist. It can exist, but there'd be more powerhouse companies existing. Competition would be much harder for businesses in a free market. Do you not agree? With a government, there's no monopoly PERIOD. Without one, the possibility of a monopoly exists, but using our 'logic', it may be doubtful - but it's still possible. That's the point.

Fiat currency is backed by nothing. You call it stability, but all you're doing is devaluing the currency.

Definitely better than barter.

Alright. By chance, how much would an average person make there?

Okay, well in my area, our incomes are generally over 400k a year - in the Beirut area, I would assume it's around the same. I know architects down there that make over a million dollars a year.

I'll tell you how I make my money though. You'll be surprised how easy it is, and how any Americans could come and do my job. I'm a contractor (I studied for something completely irrelevant - computer engineering). People come to me with plans to build a villa, and they ask me to execute it. In general, it takes me around a year to build a villa, because I don't have to deal with many governmental issues - I just build. They give me all the money. All I ask for is 15% of the building price of the villa, which generally, is around 1 million dollars. So for each villa, I make around 150k. I generally build around 4 a year, so that's 600k. Now note something - I do not pay ANY taxes on this. It's 600k, straight into my pocket (actually into my bank, and the interest rates are over 6% here). My father learned of this opportunity and told me of it, and this is why I left the states. And competition is easy - the people here try to cheat by purchasing materials cheaply for the house, and saying they're worth more to bump up the price of the house. I don't lie - I'm honest to my customers, and I feel this is what gets me business.

Ok, is it possible for a bank to have its business model where you do not pay interest tax (or whatever the relevant tax is)?

Interest counts as income. You will always pay taxes for it in the real world. You're just informed by the bank that you have to pay interest tax when you open an account, so you essentially agree to it in the first place by saying/signing that you agree to the terms and conditions.

Can you work without registering yourself under a business?

Yes! I mow someone's lawn, get 20 bucks, and put that in the bank. The USA demands to earn on all income - but people lie when they have to report how much their 'other' income is. You don't have to report that you mowed someone's lawn and made 20 bucks - everyone does this, and I'm sure the USA knows.

A business must pay all relevant taxes, period.

They agreed to it, period. They're signing tangible contracts of agreement. This is all you asked for.

Again, what if the government prevents you from leaving by cancelling your passport or something? It can in principle do this, can it not?

Addressed this. We're talking about avoiding taxes here.

If the school is a private institution, there's nothing wrong with that. A business can make any rule it wants.

Can America not be considered a 'private institution', with its own rules?

Furthermore, schools have certain ways that they determine the intelligence of their students. An example is tests. Now, let's say it is against my will to do a test to demonstrate how smart I am. Are you saying the school is being immoral now? After all, that's my only option. If I don't do a test, I fail, get kicked out of school, become unsuccessful in life, and perhaps even die (slippery slope - but you do it too).

I'm more than happy to argue that, in the long run, welfare is (a) economically undesirable, and (b) socially undesirable. That should qualify it for a 'majorly immoral' system.

It decreases poverty. That's a fact - I already showed you the statistics. Decreasing poverty is good for the economy, good for society.

The point is, the initiation of force is everywhere. It's because of government you must do something. A business wouldn't force you to pay tax unless they had to, it's just not good business, and it's a waste of their time. The government is the cause behind all this.

We're using initiation of force too comfortably now. The government is not grabbing you and forcing you to sign the contract and work for the business. That would be the initiation of force. Force means I HAVE to do something. I don't HAVE to work for a business. That's my choice. I decide to do it (based on my needs), TANGIBLY AGREE TO ITS QUIRKS, and then complain?

Same with a business - I don't HAVE to register my own business, and tangibly agree to all of the government's conditions.

This is like me entering a school, where it clearly says the rule is not to run around naked in the halls, and yet I agree to go to said school, run naked in the halls, and then object when I'm punished.

You're saying the government is the cause of all this - great, we took it a few steps back. Let's take it another step back - a poorer society/economy required the government. It's our founding fathers' faults! It's done.

Drug dealers are in the blackmarket. The embargo is the cause of it. Look at prohibition. Also, it's a victimless crime, so, you wouldn't be affecting other lives if it was truly victimless, correct? Besides, what is interaction between 2 people any of your business? If they affect you via negative externalities, sue them, wait, it's a frivolous law suit...

You're diverting from the subject at hand. Do you agree that it's justified that a drug dealer should be considered a criminal? I think you're missing another point here too - this is not a simple business interaction. Drug dealers know when their users are dying, when their users are stealing to get money for drugs, etc. yet they STILL sell to them, because all they care about is making money. This is plain wrong, they're simply bringing death closer to their customers, and reinforcing their stealing behavior.

Strawman. This doesn't address whether it legitimises a ban (initiation on force) over interaction/trade between 2 people.

Why are we diverting? I don't understand. You're saying that a crime such as drugs/prostitution would consider you a criminal, and hence, you cannot leave the country. I'm arguing against that. The point of selling drugs was brought up by me - but that was in the first paragraph. This is dealing with actually using drugs. No, if you use drugs, you will not be on the criminal blacklist. Only if you have a large quantity of drugs, and it looks like you're selling them. Otherwise, yes, even if you were using drugs, you can leave the country.

Roads have existed before government. You say there's no profit to be made, yet for charity there is also no profit to be made. Unless of course you consider the ability to use a road, bridge, etc. profit. This book deals with the 'roads' part, which can be extrapolated very well: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/..._Audiobook.pdf (Table of contents are there).

Another: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Public_goods

You're saying the free market cannot produce those public goods because it attracts the free-rider problem, and businesses cannot profit. Firstly, are you sure businesses can't profit? Tolls? Ring a bell on what the government does.

First, we're assuming charities don't make profit. We know charities sometimes take some of the money. Second, charities do not operate as much/efficiently as the government controlling infrastructure. Third, a lot more money is needed for infrastructure than for charities. Fourth, charities have the burden of a niche of people - not the entire population. If they cannot afford to build/fix a highway, does that mean we're just going to have to wait for the donations to pile in before we can use said highway? Who knows how long that could take.

Also, surely we can agree on something - roads existed before government, but were they anything near what they are today? Would you argue that the infrastructure of the past was better, or headed in the same direction, as the present? Nope. We cannot argue that, especially for areas like America, the government does an EXCELLENT job with the infrastructure.

Second, I addressed tolls later on. Don't forget, without a government, tolls would have to be applied EVERYWHERE now, not just huge highways. I don't want to pay a toll every time I use a newly paved street to take my child to school.

People will not agree with paying tolls. People will not agree with freely 'chipping' in money. This is where your governmental force comes, and it's needed for the improvement of the infrastructure. Governmental taxes force the consensus - and I don't mind. Why? Because otherwise, we wouldn't be reaching a consensus at all. We wouldn't ever be able to improve. A true free market cannot work with real humans.

I see what you're saying, but you are defending the person; also, these analogies are exceptionally different, so your analogy is very weak at best, for starters war = actual force, talking = on the border. There is a problem with the non-aggression principle, and it is what constitutes as force. It's a problem, I agree, but it's really nit picking at things (which is fine). But, it's like saying that, after an outbreak of an incredibly virulent and contagious disease, the doctors say how do we cure the flu... Your concern is not the flu, it's the god damn disease, much like the concern is not what constitutes force (it's a valid concern), rather, stopping the initiation of force. I do admit that there is ambiguity in scenarios like this.

Okay, I'll drop it since there's an ambiguity. Oh, and to save room for the more important stuff!

Sure, don't forget, I'm not well read, so I'm probably not doing justice to my position.

Okay, so, what is it?

Not really, you're not initiating force at all. The person is a person. Friend/bystander, these are abstract concepts. I don't view it as initiating force, you're merely protecting someone's rights, which doesn't qualify as initiating force. Remember, initiating. Are you really initiating something when you defend someone from a robber? Think of it this way: who started it. Imagine, I went up and robbed someone, and someone else came in and stopped me. The police arrested us both. Could I (The thief) say, he (bystander) started it? No, of course not.

Okay, we agreed the initiation of force is vague, and doesn't necessarily mean what it implies. I would argue the same for taxes. The initiation of force is vague - going down the 'you'll get shot' is a slippery slope, as I could say that eventually, if the fight escalates between me and the bully, I'll shoot him. Don't forget, whilst talking is not like war, neither is what the government initially does to demand taxes. Don't go down the road that you'll eventually get shot, because talking (in the bully scenario) could end up with someone getting shot, if the fight escalates.

Fact of the matter is that we have to consider the stakeholders. For me and the bully, I initiated force. No matter why I initiated force, I still did it. If you argue that in this case, it's okay because I'm defending other peoples' rights, it still doesn't deny that in a sense, I'm initiating force. You'd essentially be agreeing to something I said before - that sometimes, initiating force isn't immoral. What do you say?

Look, if you still think that this isn't initiation of force, then please, go down to the scenario with the naked man. In this case, it's CLEAR that the police are initiating force on the naked man. Do you think that's wrong?

The proposition is either true, or untrue. You have a third option, which is to abstain judgement. Which example was that by the way?

Again, it's not a bifurcation fallacy. The question was: Do you believe x. That's not fallacious, at all.

We're talking about what's good or bad here. You're telling me that's purely objective? Maybe in nature - but can we EVER figure out that nature? What are ethical dilemmas for?

This is an either/or fallacy. It's black or white thinking. Sure, for things like binary, it's either a 1, or a 0. But for things like morality, it's not so simple. Again, 50 years ago, girls wouldn't dress the way they do now because they thought it was immoral. Look at them now.

Negative externalities; sue him. In a voluntaryist society, there could be rules that everyone voluntarily agrees to, which prohibits this sort of behaviour. Again though, people rarely run around naked on the street. If you think someone is violating your rights, you are well within your rights to sue them (obviously after other steps such as talking to them, and perhaps recommending a psychiatrist).

1. Rarely is off the point, it does happen. I'm arguing against an absolute statement that the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong. I only need one counter example to debunk that statement.

2. Police find naked man in park masturbating. There's no one around - he's just by himself, and the police are performing a routine check of the area. Do you not think it's right for the police to arrest this man?

Here's actually an interesting story. A couple years ago, there was a catastrophic bushfire in Victoria (I think). There was a guy, who, prior to the bushfire, decided to clear land, etc, for the purpose of preventing a fire. The council fined him, a big fine. The bushfire came along, his house, was the only/ or one of very few, to remain standing. It's just ridiculous that you need permission to chop down your own trees to protect your own god damn house =,=

I agree. Don't forget how laws are made though. They essentially come from the people, then are passed through many governmental sectors before they're declared as a law by the president (in America). And yet, you still have the right to send in a bill to object to a law.

Perception of reality is subjective. Reality itself is objective however. Sweetness refers to a specific phenomenon, and it gets interpreted by the brain differently. That doesn't mean the phenomenon is subjective (unless you think reality is subjective...). When you ask the question: is it sweet (or a question like that), you are asking for an answer that is based on someones perception, which is subjective from person to person.

This isn't getting us anywhere. You're essentially saying it yourself - things get interpreted by the brain different, which implies subjectivity. For sweetness, there are chemical components which are objective - sure. But for how sweet something is, that's subjective - we agree on that. Now let's look at morality.

Does morality actually have anything in existence? Or is it just something we use to describe a series of actions, consequences, and whatnot? Is there some tangible item that I can measure, like pH, which shows that if its value is high, it's most likely moral, and if it's low, it's most likely immoral? No. Morality deals with values. We know this. The definition of values is what we think is good or bad. It applies to a specific person/culture only - not to the entire human race. It deals with what we think. You agreed that when it comes to our brains perceiving, it's subjective. This is all morality deals with - perceiving scenarios, and judging if they're moral/immoral. Again, why do we have ethical dilemmas?

Yes. Is the sky blue? Yes. The colour of the sky is what it is. The veracity of my answer depends on whether it conforms to reality, namely, the way things are. If a blind person comes a long and say hang on, the sky is black, he's wrong. Yes, his perception of it is black, but in reality, the sky is not black. Reality is not subject to one's whims, emotions, it exists objectively, and we have a consciousness to perceive it. Some times though, it is fallible, see illusions.

No, the color of the sky is a certain wavelength. Whether it's blue or not is subjective. It's common that we'd all say it's blue, but now, it has passed through our perception - it has become a perception of reality that it is blue. The reality is that it is a certain wavelength. That wavelength actually corresponding to the color blue as we see it (instead of red, for example) is not so correct. Did it ever occur to you that some people may see the sky as a very minuscule but surely different shade of blue than you do, just because of slight changes in their eye structure? If it was objectively blue (the same blue you see), this would not be the case.

The only thing we can agree on is that the wavelength is there - it's the same, it's objective. But this wouldn't correspond to morality now, would it? What do we measure for morality? Nothing. We judge an entire scenario - it's already become a perception of reality (judging), but we will never know the reality, as all we've got is our perception. Our perception determines if a certain scenario is good or bad (values). Ethical dilemmas wouldn't really be dilemmas now if ethics happened to be objective, would it?

Now, is it nonsensical to say the sky is blue? If we trace back to your argument, then yes, it is, because it's subjective. But I disagreed with that. Sometimes, subjective phenomena are just so obvious that we tend to take them for granted. Are they truly objective? Nope, but even you agree that the sky is blue. And I don't think it's nonsensical for you to say that. Although, Sean may!

It is, but it's a moral fact, unless you are one fucked cookie, that the holocaust was morally wrong (I can justify it, but there's no need to, since you agree with the moral fact).

I agree that it's wrong, but I wouldn't use the word 'fact' so comfortably. Facts are for objective phenomena.

Certain moral principles are never changing though. murder, theft, rape, which all come under the initiation of force. I'll get onto this a bit more later.

I would argue that those have biological/evolutionary components, and are instilled within us (except theft, babies do that all the time). But still, this means nothing for the scenarios. You're essentially saying that murder, rape, are intrinsically bad. Or, you're appealing to popularity.

You can clearly avoid the situation; don't look at the man. Besides, in a voluntaryist society, everything would be privately own, so you could haul the man off for trespassing. I hardly think the man is initiating force anyway, though there may be negative externalities which you, arguably could sue him for (frivolous law suit though...), the situation is easily avoided, correct?

You're missing the point - the man ISN'T initiating force. I agree to that! But the police are! Doesn't that mean that what the police are doing is wrong? After all, that's what you said - initiating force is immoral. But in this case, I don't think it's immoral for the police to initiate force.

Explained above.

Didn't understand the example appropriately. The police have initiated force - not the man running naked.

Right, in my opinion, the slave would go free due to the mitigating circumstances, namely, he was a slave. That still doesn't mean trespass is wrong, it just means that due to the mitigating circumstances he won't be punished for it.

Yes, do you not think that's fair?

Coercing your kids is bad parenting, namely, hitting them. Punishment only tells kids what not to do, you need to reinforce them, that's what tells them what to do. Reinforcement always > punishment. Anyways, there will always be bad parents, laws haven't stopped this, and I think it's immoral to try and intervene by initiating force. The way to solve this problem in my opinion is through education. Educating, good, moral, intelligent, productive, virtuous citizens which will go onto reproduce, and rear the next generation is the way to go.

Yeah, in the article I gave you, he simply ran away because his parents banned him from playing Call of Duty - he was addicted to it. In any case, I do agree that education would solve problems like these. For now, they exist though, so this is just another element which makes children look like 'slaves'.

It's not the initiation of force if both parties consent, that's the point I was trying to make. If someone was funding a terrorist group, society would severely negatively sanction them, in a voluntaryist society, they would be sanctioned so severely that there qualtiy of life would decrease below that of middle class (voluntaryist system is very different). Morally, should Bill Gates have done that? No. Politically, do we have the right to initiate force? No. This comes to logic, and morality, which is almost coming up... The problem I find when arguing about this topic is that morality and politics is so easily equivocated, and conflated, I've done it, you've done it, it's just a nightmare because they are entirely separate concepts. One is what we should do. The other is what can we do to people (how should we govern people). Funnily enough, Bill Gates already gives money to a terrorist organization; the government, responsible for more deaths than al-Qaeda, and the Taliban put together!

I disagree with the part that we shouldn't initiate force. I'd lead you back to the man running naked, or the man naked in the park, or whatever naked man you want (just try not to picture it too clearly, for your own good).

Answer the question, without being sneaky =,= What is your moral standard; how do you evaluate what is moral or not?

Well, I kind of said it elsewhere. I judge based on the entire scenario. I look at the actions - I take each one in its context, and judge if it was moral/immoral. Then I look at the consequences, and see if they led to a good outcome/bad outcome. Then I weigh both sides out. If the actions were majorly moral (treating a few cancer patients), but the outcome was not (doing this to coax the hot nurse into having sex), then I weigh things out, and judge that the entire scenario is immoral. If the actions were 'majorly immoral' (police initiating force on naked man masturbating in the park) but the outcome was good (he gets his naked ass back into his home), then I weigh things out, and judge the entire scenario as moral. I really only think this is fair.

You've barely made a case for subjective morality, and I'll show you why you really haven't.

I really could say the opposite.

You need nutrients, not nutrition, there's a very big difference. Also, if someone said nutrition as a disciple is objective, you would say yes, that is because in order to achieve a healthy life style, one must obey the principles that has been discovered through nutrition. This is because reality is objective, if you think eating cake won't make you fat, you're sorely mistaken, and reality will not alter it for you. Now, you can say that what each person should do with regards to nutrition is subjective. That's fine, but it's principles are objective. The same is said for morality, and it seems that you agree. We need to discover the principles before we know what we should do, like nutrtion, we need to discover the principles before we know what we should eat in order to live a healthy life, and in the case of morality, a moral life.

Ah, but you see, nutrients are a part of nutrition! Nutrients are essentially the units of nutrition. You need them, but the quantities you need them in are subjective. Also yes, for one to achieve a good lifestyle, you need good nutrition - but you're missing a vital point. You said good nutrition - how do we determine what is good nutrition? Sure, we know the obvious stuff, don't eat trans fats, eat in moderation, etc. Now, what about the non-obvious stuff? How much fiber should I eat for a healthy lifestyle? How much of this vitamin should I take? People study nutrition - yet 2 nutritionists will not give the same exact diet plan to, for example, David. Sure, David has goiter, he needs iodine, but how much would be sufficient?

Now for morality, what is its unit? Values! Based on values, we determine if a scenario is moral/immoral. Values deal with what we think is good or bad. It's very simple. Not everyone has the same values. We may argue that some values are 'objective' in a sense (no raping), but many of them aren't (ethical dilemmas). This is why I believe your quote is just making morality seem less objective than you think. We should live a moral life. But how do we determine what's moral and what's immoral? The way we determine that things are moral/immoral is subjective.

Also your analogy with ellen and lady gaga deals with aesthetics, not morality.

Since when are analogies supposed to be so literal? The point that the analogy is making is that you're saying morality is as objective as nutrition, when nutrition isn't so objective at all. The comparison that both have objective principles is faulty as well. I don't see how that quote helps your case to make morality seem objective.

Let's go with your system, we look at everything. A man asks, how he should live his life, and another man says, here's the system, look at the actions, the consequences, and so on. So a man thinks, o, should he steal from that person. Well, I'm sure you'll agree that the action of stealing, with nothing else to go by is immoral. The man then goes, o, well, it may be immoral, but maybe the consequences could make it 'majorly moral' (assume the man is starving). So he begins to take into account the consequences, but how does he do this? How can he predict the consequences? How does he know how the other guy will react? He doesn't, he will essentially be playing a guessing game. With all the examples you've given, you've applied morality after the event has occurred, and the consequences are known. At the time, when thinking about what we should do, we cannot possible know the consequences, so, an action we think is moral at the time due to our poor calculation, and nature of not knowing the future could actually be immoral in hindsight. So, how do we reconcile this?

I'm honestly disappointed. You're putting words into my mouth, and then attacking them. I have said it probably twice in my previous post that I look at the entire scenario. This includes both the actions and the consequences. I have shown cases for each where we'd make what would appear to be a wrong decision if we just focused on one of them. I explicitly said to never focus on one of them. Yet you still insist that I have this mindset. In the example you gave, I wouldn't say it's moral because the action was unjustified theft, and after weighing things out, the consequence's benefits would be rendered insignificant to the entire scenario.

And no, we're not only looking at things after they have happened - that's probably only the Bill Gates scenario. What about the man running naked on the street? When the police initiate force, their INTENT is to get him back to his home. That's where we base the morals. Essentially, the consequence they want is to get him to his home.

When I treat a few cancer patients, my INTENT is to coax the hot nurse into having sex with me. If I explain the situation to you, it's only because you are not the stakeholder. But the intents exist, and have a big role in what consequence would occur. In fact, I never even said that I would treat a few cancer patients AND get to have sex with the hot nurse. I just said that I'm treating them only to try and coax the hot nurse into having sex with me. Nothing's definite. All that was explained was the intent. For my examples, try to put yourself in said person's shoes.

So, what we think determines what is moral? That has 2 implications. One, that reality is subjective, providing morality exists as a 'thing' in nature. Or Two, morality doesn't exist. In which case, we are still stuck with the question: how should we live our life.

Explain ethical dilemmas.

You're missing a vital point - even if morality is objective, even if it has objective principles, we can NEVER know them. Everything we speculate about them is subjective. Tell me, if morality has objective principles, how do we determine what they are? Based on what we feel?

To find the truth. The truth is objective though, right?

In nature, yes. But our interpretation of the truth? Not necessarily. You're missing a point - can we ever determine its nature? In some cases, yes, in others, no.

O come on, this is pure semantics. Red refers to x wavelength. Blue refers to y wavelength. We define blue as that wavelength, which our perception tells us. That wavelength exists objectively in reality (you already accept this). You're saying what if y is x instead? That's just silly, we've defined things, we refer to the same phenomenon, the only difference is the definition/semantics.

It's like going into a foreign place, and saying, that's a table. Other people label it a chair. The difference is semantics, you are talking about the same thing!

Yes! You're missing a point. We defined wavelength X as blue based on our perception. Weren't you making an argument that our perception can be subjective? It's very simple - perhaps we have defined wavelength X incorrectly. Maybe it is red. How can we ever know? We cannot - so we stick with the subjective claim that it is blue, but even being subjective, it's not nonsensical to say the sky is blue.

The initiation of force was always my position.

Naked man running on the street, naked man in the park, etc.

Dealt with.

Misunderstood.

The initiation of force is the reason for it's existence. In order for someone to set up a business, they're forced to pay taxes. In order for them to hire someone, they are forced to tax them in a contract. You are coerced into being tax. You're just avoiding what underpins everything: the initiation of force by the government through laws. How about I set up a business, without registering, and hire people without giving putting taxes in the contract. You will be locked up, everyone would be. There is no other choice for you.

So you're changing your argument? If I'm not mistaken, all you asked from me was for tangible evidence of agreement, and I gave it to you.

Furthermore, you're tracing things back way too far. Here's something I'd like to trace back then - if I'm not mistaken, laws, the government, etc. were all the society's choice. Our founding fathers wanted a government, previous societies have determined some of the new laws that are in effect today, etc. Perhaps we should blame them? No. The fact of the matter is it's done. You don't have to agree to anything. Just don't actually agree, and then complain about it.

After all, we're talking about YOU here - not the businesses. You're not forced to work in a business. You force things upon yourself BASED ON YOUR OWN NEEDS. Don't blame the government for you wanting to work for a business. And don't blame them when you TANGIBLY AGREE to the conditions for said business.

It controls a monopoly by (a) being a monopoly itself (b) sometimes entering the market as a natural monopoly... Also, trademarks/patents, they're ridiculous, but we don't need to get into an argument about that. It all comes back to the social contract, it's primary purpose was to legitimise the governments initiation of force on its citizens. You need to prove that (by proof, I mean logical proof, not empirical proof).

1. Father prevents his child from watching porn even though he watches porn himself. He's still doing something good (given you disagree with porn).

2. How can you say trademarks/patents are silly?

3. Provide logical proof of evolution.

In the case of a road, there could be tolls; there already are. Or, in the case of a local town, everyone could chip in, if some people disagree, there could be a toll, charging them for access on the road. Also, people would negatively sanction someone that didn't have a valid reason to chip in, so there are numerous disadvantages to not chipping in because you're 'greedy'.

I think you have a lot of hope. First thing, I mentioned tolls myself - something I do not want. Right now, there are only tolls for huge highways. But don't forget, when the infrastructure is not controlled by the government anymore, ALL OF IT is eligible for 'profit'. Highways, bridges, streets, etc. don't last. They always need to be maintained. When a private company takes responsibility of this, surely they would want to make some profit, otherwise, they're just spending money. They may ask people to pay. If people are freely given the choice, they'd disagree. I mean, look at how many disagree for paying taxes! You make it seem like it'd be a negative social stigma to disagree, but I think it'd be a lot more common than you think.

Can you, or can you not provide a proper logical argument, with premises leading to a conclusion in favour of a social contract? That's how logic works.

"I used other methods than the social contract to 'prove' that the initiation of force is permitted in certain situations. This argument didn't solely rely on it."

I underlined the important parts of what I said. I'm not speaking of using the social contract.

And can you provide a logical proof of evolution?

Not really...

Morality, and Logic (also relates to the social contract)
In rational discourse, what we are doing now, we use logic. How logic works is that premises lead to a conclusion. Engaging in rational discourse, and using logic implies an acceptance that you agree to this.

Logical arguments are strucutred (loosely, like this):

A therefore B
B therefore C
A therefore C

Invalid arguments are fallacies, but it is sound arguments that we are most interested in. A premise in a logical argument is true independent of the consequences. For example, we do not say gravity doesn't exist because we could fall down a flight of stairs... We don't say the meteor isn't heading for Earth because it will kill us... We simply don't do this. Consequences have no business in criticizing the veracity of a premise.

That said, there are consequences for accepting a premise (the consequence still apply if you don't accept it). If you agree that gravity exists, then you could fall down a flight of stairs because of it. This negative consequence doesn't invalidate the premise, it's just a consequence of the truth. The same applies for the meteor, the catastrophic consequence doesn't matter, the premise that a meteor is going to hit Earth is true.

What happens when we apply this to morality? Remember, we are using logic because this is a rational discussion, so should easily accept that consequences of the truth of a premise don't affect the truth of a premise itself. So, we have a premise, murder is good. You can say, if murder is good, then people would kill each other, and there would be chaos, therefore murder is not good. This is the same as saying gravity is incorrect because if it were true, I could fall down a flight of stairs... You are going about morality the wrong way if you are engaging in rational discourse. This applies to when you say you need to weigh up the consequences. You are saying that the truth of a premise is dependent on its consequences, it simply isn't.

Furthermore, to criticize the dealing with the consequences part, and your system where you evaluate everything. You've made the statement, but you haven't made a case. You cannot make a case that we should evaluate the consequences because look at the consequences. It's circular reasoning. You need to first justify why consequences are acceptable in morality, and have some special place when it comes to logic. Once you successfully do that, only then can you continue to use consequences, otherwise you are simply begging the question.

Finally, most of your arguments have essentially been about consequences, more specifically everything, where consequences are a large part. You need to:

1: Show why using consequences is able to discover what is moral; how we should act.
2: Show why consequences affect the veracity of a premise in morality, and not any other philosophical discipline such as epistemology.

Only then can you successfully justify your position. You simply cannot use consequences to evaluate morality without showing why morality can be evaluated by consequences.

You see, you're mixing things up again - just like how you mixed science with morality before.

You're using logic to deal with something that is highly related to emotions - morality. Emotions are a completely different way of knowing than reasoning (logic is concerned with reasoning). Can they still be used to acquire knowledge? Yes - this is what the theory of knowledge is all about. But how can I determine what will make someone happy? Is there some sort of logical proof for it? Of course not - there is empirical evidence, but even then, it's not so certain. Some people become happy from the most awkward things.

In any case, can you somehow provide logical proof that self defense is justified? Don't forget, with logical proof, the conclusion is ABSOLUTELY correct. If you are able to find a logical proof for self defense, and I'm able to find a counter-example to your conclusion, then that means your entire logical proof is flawed.

I can only provide you empirical evidence. Does that mean what I'm saying is false? After all, what can you provide me for the theory of evolution?

Also, you're claiming that empirical evidence is insufficient. We're missing something though - I'm not using empirical evidence to make a case. I'm using them as COUNTER-EXAMPLES to claims you have made. Absolute claims (without logical proof, mind you). If I'm not mistaken, in logic, isn't this more than enough for me to prove what you said is wrong? Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

All in all, you're mixing morality up with logic/science. You're assuming scenarios can be proved to be moral. Surely if that was the case, great minds would have already solved our famous ethical dilemmas. And they wouldn't be called dilemmas anymore.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, and now, I want to talk about the free market - just out of pure interest. I am really concerned to how you can completely eliminate taxes, yet expect rights (such as the protection of others against crime) to exist. After all, what funds these people? I need to know what would fund the following:

1. Infrastructure
2. Policemen
3. Firemen
4. Military
5. Prison
6. Court
7. Public parks

The list goes on. If you agree to having a government which is only involved in protecting the rights of its citizens (no killing, stealing, etc.) you need a lot of the things I mentioned above (policemen, military, prison, the court, and whatnot). You also use the infrastructure quite a lot, and you may even need to use the firemen one day (hopefully not). Fact of the matter is that you don't pay for any of these things at all. Are you willing to drop taxes, and drop all of these public services as well? Don't forget - if you do, you may have to pay the next time your house catches on fire! That would suck - lose a house, and you'd have to pay?

 

[malakadang]

You did not have the capacity to consent to live in a certain country. A slave born into a master's house did not have the capacity to consent living into his/her master's house. Etcetera.

When you are not alive, you have no capacity.

Only if you're a criminal. Which I don't see anything wrong with them cancelling your passport in such a case. Anyways, we're talking about a normal person, trying to avoid tax fees. You'll most likely have your passport.

In principle, they can.

Okay, if you disagree, then you don't mind your area being flooded with Mexicans, Arabs, or any other person in the entire world? Don't forget, they don't even need to speak your language.

This is entirely irrelevant and a complete strawman. Whether or not I want to live with x people does not mean I do not own my own body, and the products of my labour.

I'm not sure about attainable. If it was attainable (true free market), then yes, arguably better. Note I'm not talking about social liberty. I disagree with that.

True free market is the natural state of affairs, absolute social liberty is the natural state of affairs.

Those limitations don't compare to barter.

The Great Depression? The GFC and Eurozone crisis? All because of fiat money; see Austrian theory of the business cycle.

It is his fault - but the point is, he was still scammed. If we work with this mentality that everything can be subjectively priced, scamming would occur much more often. We can subjectively price our goods, sure, but not the way we pay for them. Think about it.

Dumb people would get scammed, that's about it... If someone is going to believe a t-shirt is worth as much as a house, I'd question whether or not they have rationality, perhaps evolution is diverging again.

If a father watches porn, but prevents his child from watching porn, I don't see a problem. If the government is a monopoly in certain aspects, and prevents monopolies from happening, I don't see a problem.

It's a contradiction. If you are against monopolies you are against all monopolies. Unless you want to commit the special pleading fallacy... Besides, in a free market, monopolies theoretically don't exist.

Your video is hypothetical, but I enjoyed it. Fact of the matter, it CAN happen. He explains many situations but we're presuming what other companies would do. We're presuming that buying other companies will put you in debt. We're presuming that lowering our prices has to be below the profit margin - maybe lowering them to a slight profit margin is adequate to destroy competition. In any case, I never denied that competition CANNOT exist. It can exist, but there'd be more powerhouse companies existing. Competition would be much harder for businesses in a free market. Do you not agree? With a government, there's no monopoly PERIOD. Without one, the possibility of a monopoly exists, but using our 'logic', it may be doubtful - but it's still possible. That's the point.

We're presuming what entrepreneurs would do, each human has the capacity to be an entrepreneur. Also, if there is a slight profit margin, then the prices are only slightly above equilibrium, so it makes no difference to the consumer.

Definitely better than barter.

Fiat currency, the way the central bank is handling it is the cause of social problems far worst than barter. The limitations of barter are more convenience based limitations.

Okay, well in my area, our incomes are generally over 400k a year - in the Beirut area, I would assume it's around the same. I know architects down there that make over a million dollars a year.

Really? That's amazing.

I'll tell you how I make my money though. You'll be surprised how easy it is, and how any Americans could come and do my job. I'm a contractor (I studied for something completely irrelevant - computer engineering). People come to me with plans to build a villa, and they ask me to execute it. In general, it takes me around a year to build a villa, because I don't have to deal with many governmental issues - I just build. They give me all the money. All I ask for is 15% of the building price of the villa, which generally, is around 1 million dollars. So for each villa, I make around 150k. I generally build around 4 a year, so that's 600k. Now note something - I do not pay ANY taxes on this. It's 600k, straight into my pocket (actually into my bank, and the interest rates are over 6% here). My father learned of this opportunity and told me of it, and this is why I left the states. And competition is easy - the people here try to cheat by purchasing materials cheaply for the house, and saying they're worth more to bump up the price of the house. I don't lie - I'm honest to my customers, and I feel this is what gets me business.

Fantastic, the wonders of the free market!

Interest counts as income. You will always pay taxes for it in the real world. You're just informed by the bank that you have to pay interest tax when you open an account, so you essentially agree to it in the first place by saying/signing that you agree to the terms and conditions.

So, it is illegal to have a business where interest is not taxed. Essentially, the government forces businesses to put in their contracts you must pay tax... The point is missed, coercion is behind everything.

Yes! I mow my lawn, get 20 bucks, and put that in the bank. The USA demands to earn on all income - but people lie when they have to report how much their 'other' income is. You don't have to report that you mowed someone's lawn and made 20 bucks - everyone does this, and I'm sure the USA knows.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal? Yes, cash transactions are something the Government cannot trace, but it just testifies to the fact that people do not want to pay tax.

They agreed to it, period. They're signing tangible contracts of agreement. This is all you asked for.

That is fair, it is what I asked for, but you still haven't dealt with the problem that the government is forcing businesses to put it in their contracts. Businesses wouldn't normally put it in their contract, it's bad business. If they don't, they're fined.

Can America not be considered a 'private institution', with its own rules?

America doesn't exist, only people exist on the land that is abstracted to America.

It decreases poverty. That's a fact - I already showed you the statistics. Decreasing poverty is good for the economy, good for society.

It creates a permanent underclass. It usually creates intergenerational poverty. It renders people entirely dependent on the state. It wastes natural resources on unproductive members of society. There is little incentive for people requiring welfare to go out and work (emphasis on little). Welfare is counter intuitive, is promotes not working, see positive reinforcement. People on welfare don't work, unemployment has a whole range of social and economic costs. Also, this isn't a good argument. x leads to a desirable result. Therefore x is desirable. Not necessarily.

We're using initiation of force too comfortably now. The government is not grabbing you and forcing you to sign the contract and work for the business. That would be the initiation of force. Force means I HAVE to do something. I don't HAVE to work for a business. That's my choice. I decide to do it (based on my needs), TANGIBLY AGREE TO ITS QUIRKS, and then complain?

No, it's forcing business...

Same with a business - I don't HAVE to register my own business, and tangibly agree to all of the government's conditions.

Yes you do, if you want to sell goods and services.

This is like me entering a school, where it clearly says the rule is not to run around naked in the halls, and yet I agree to go to said school, run naked in the halls, and then object when I'm punished.

You voluntarily went to school.

Imagine if a school had a monopoly in a region. Imagine this school made it a rule that every student must go to this school.

You're saying the government is the cause of all this - great, we took it a few steps back. Let's take it another step back - a poorer society/economy required the government. It's our founding fathers' faults! It's done.

The founding fathers made a mistake. They were well aware of the dangers of government, you only need to see their quotes on government to see this. They were minarchists. Minarchy always leads to big statisim, because (a) people are free, so wealth is created most efficiently, which will then increase taxation revenue and big state ensues. Had they set up an anrcho-capitalist society, things may have been different.

You're diverting from the subject at hand. Do you agree that it's justified that a drug dealer should be considered a criminal? I think you're missing another point here too - this is not a simple business interaction. Drug dealers know when their users are dying, when their users are stealing to get money for drugs, etc. yet they STILL sell to them, because all they care about is making money. This is plain wrong, they're simply bringing death closer to their customers, and reinforcing their stealing behavior.

Actually, it is a simple business interaction, x is being traded for y. Also, I don't believe selling drugs is a good thing. I also don't think we should point guns at people because we have disagreements, some drug dealers might think it's a good thing. Either way, the war on drugs will end up like prohibition. Why don't you ban alcohol? Why don't you ban cigarettes? They cause far more problems than marijuana.

Why are we diverting? I don't understand. You're saying that a crime such as drugs/prostitution would consider you a criminal, and hence, you cannot leave the country. I'm arguing against that. The point of selling drugs was brought up by me - but that was in the first paragraph. This is dealing with actually using drugs. No, if you use drugs, you will not be on the criminal blacklist. Only if you have a large quantity of drugs, and it looks like you're selling them. Otherwise, yes, even if you were using drugs, you can leave the country.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said either makes you a criminal.

First, we're assuming charities don't make profit. We know charities sometimes take some of the money. Second, charities do not operate as much/efficiently as the government controlling infrastructure. Third, a lot more money is needed for infrastructure than for charities. Fourth, charities have the burden of a niche of people - not the entire population. If they cannot afford to build/fix a highway, does that mean we're just going to have to wait for the donations to pile in before we can use said highway? Who knows how long that could take.

It doesn't matter who fixes the problem, it doesn't matter whether a charity profits or not, the point is there is a problem, and you want it fixed. You say that this problem must be fixed by forcing other people to fix it. I'm saying this problem can be fixed voluntarily, with people binding together to fix it without coercion.

Also, the free market applies to charities. Charities that are inefficient, take too much profit will not be donated to by consumers. They will then collapse. Government is not subject to the market forces, so there's no telling whether or not it will be efficient. Besides, with the amount of taxation , you'd think poverty would already be fixed now.

Also, surely we can agree on something - roads existed before government, but were they anything near what they are today? Would you argue that the infrastructure of the past was better, or headed in the same direction, as the present? Nope. We cannot argue that, especially for areas like America, the government does an EXCELLENT job with the infrastructure.

Yea, um, technology changes... The government should be doing an "excellent job", if they're going to steal from me, I'd rather the money be spent making something "excellent", than shitty. Though, I digress, I'd rather they not steal from me to begin with.

Second, I addressed tolls later on. Don't forget, without a government, tolls would have to be applied EVERYWHERE now, not just huge highways. I don't want to pay a toll every time I use a newly paved street to take my child to school.

How tolls/private roads operate depend on society. Nonetheless, you have no right to use someones else private property. If you disagree, go an use your neighbours car for the week. It should be noted, that there are some benevolent people, perhaps they won't charge for tolls (not everyone, sure, but some).

People will not agree with paying tolls. People will not agree with freely 'chipping' in money. This is where your governmental force comes, and it's needed for the improvement of the infrastructure. Governmental taxes force the consensus - and I don't mind. Why? Because otherwise, we wouldn't be reaching a consensus at all. We wouldn't ever be able to improve. A true free market cannot work with real humans.

A true free market works perfectly with 'real' humans. Also, if people do not agree to paying the tolls, then why should they have the right to use the private property. Do I have a right to use my neighbours bike? No. Why should I have the right to use their road then? The roads problem is dealed in the ebook btw, it's only a few pages.

Okay, so, what is it?

My position, an anarcho-capitalist society. There are books you can read that articulate and defend my position a million times better than I ever could. I'm not lying about my position, it's just that I'm probably not doing the best job in defending it considering how unique it is relative to the government does everything because 'real people' can't do it themselves.

Funnily enough, the government is composed of 'real people'.

Okay, we agreed the initiation of force is vague, and doesn't necessarily mean what it implies. I would argue the same for taxes. The initiation of force is vague - going down the 'you'll get shot' is a slippery slope, as I could say that eventually, if the fight escalates between me and the bully, I'll shoot him. Don't forget, whilst talking is not like war, neither is what the government initially does to demand taxes. Don't go down the road that you'll eventually get shot, because talking (in the bully scenario) could end up with someone getting shot, if the fight escalates.

Firstly, if a fight escalates between you and the bully, most people wouldn't shoot the bully. It simply doesn't happen. The steps from disagreeing to government to getting shot are very simple, and hardly controversial. The bully on the other hand, not so simply, and quite controversial.

Also, what is theft.

We can define it as the illegal taking of other peoples property without their freely given consent.

Taxation?

The legal taking of other peoples property without their freely given consent.

Fact of the matter is that we have to consider the stakeholders. For me and the bully, I initiated force. No matter why I initiated force, I still did it. If you argue that in this case, it's okay because I'm defending other peoples' rights, it still doesn't deny that in a sense, I'm initiating force. You'd essentially be agreeing to something I said before - that sometimes, initiating force isn't immoral. What do you say?

You are NOT INITIATING FORCE. It's retaliatory force.

Look, if you still think that this isn't initiation of force, then please, go down to the scenario with the naked man. In this case, it's CLEAR that the police are initiating force on the naked man. Do you think that's wrong?

Yes, the police are initiating force. It's a problem that statism faces, and not voluntaryism. So, you can't really use it to criticize me because there is a solution under a voluntaryist society, but not a statist society.

We're talking about what's good or bad here. You're telling me that's purely objective? Maybe in nature - but can we EVER figure out that nature? What are ethical dilemmas for?


This is an either/or fallacy. It's black or white thinking. Sure, for things like binary, it's either a 1, or a 0. But for things like morality, it's not so simple. Again, 50 years ago, girls wouldn't dress the way they do now because they thought it was immoral. Look at them now.

It's not an either or fallacy. Why is morality not subject to logic? Is it an illogical discipline? If it is, then we're both wasting our time by attempting to debate it logically. It's like trying to practice science with faith.

Look. Here is an either or fallacy:

a or b
not b
therefore a

I'm not doing that.

I'm asking what you think of proposition a.

It is subject to the law of the excluded middle a proposition is either true, or untrue. Your constant evasion of the law of the excluded middle is troubling, and your labeling it as a false dilemma is unsettling.

In the case of you agreeing and disagreeing. We have a statement: Socrates is was a mortal dog. Do you agree or disagree? You disagree. Why? Because socrates was not a dog, even though he was a mortal.

A statement is either true or untrue, that statement is untrue despite it containing some true elements. If you'd like, you can break things down, you agree with the proposition that socrates is a mortal, but reject that he is a dog.

It's that simple, and not a fallacy, please do not say it is again, when it clearly isn't.

Again, do you think the initiation of force is morally unacceptable?

It is a statement. It is subject to the law of the excluded middle. You can break it down if you wish. It is not an either or fallacy, it is not structured like one at all, and the question is not fallacious. You can refer to what I said about consequences affecting the veracity of a statement.

1. Rarely is off the point, it does happen. I'm arguing against an absolute statement that the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong. I only need one counter example to debunk that statement.

You haven't debunked it.

If I own a property, and a naked man runs on it, I can remove him for trespass. There is no initiation of force (this is not considered initiating force).

If the man is on a public road, it is a problem that statism faces, not the system I advocate.

2. Police find naked man in park masturbating. There's no one around - he's just by himself, and the police are performing a routine check of the area. Do you not think it's right for the police to arrest this man?

The police must, it's an expectation of that they arrest people who break the law (aside from their personal discretion). Ask yourself: Is the man trespassing? Trespassing violates property rights, so removing him is not an initiation of force, since the trespass was the initiation of force.

I agree. Don't forget how laws are made though. They essentially come from the people, then are passed through many governmental sectors before they're declared as a law by the president (in America). And yet, you still have the right to send in a bill to object to a law.

In the Australian parliamentary system, you are represented by a member of parliament in your constituent. You can submit your queries to said member. There is supposed to be a feature of 'responsible government' here, however the only 'responsibility' is they have is that they can be voted out next election... Also, they rarely voice your opinions. Sure, in principle you can write a letter, but no one cares. If 400 million people wrote a letter to Obama he's not going to read it all, the same applies to the members of congress. They only go with the majority, which is why democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

This isn't getting us anywhere. You're essentially saying it yourself - things get interpreted by the brain different, which implies subjectivity. For sweetness, there are chemical components which are objective - sure. But for how sweet something is, that's subjective - we agree on that. Now let's look at morality.

Sweetness doesn't exist. It's just an abstract concept used to describe the a sensation that we call sweet.

Does morality actually have anything in existence? Or is it just something we use to describe a series of actions, consequences, and whatnot? Is there some tangible item that I can measure, like pH, which shows that if its value is high, it's most likely moral, and if it's low, it's most likely immoral? No. Morality deals with values. We know this. The definition of values is what we think is good or bad. It applies to a specific person/culture only - not to the entire human race. It deals with what we think. You agreed that when it comes to our brains perceiving, it's subjective. This is all morality deals with - perceiving scenarios, and judging if they're moral/immoral. Again, why do we have ethical dilemmas?

We have ethical dilemmas because people disagree. We also have disagreements in science, it doesn't change the truth. This is rational discourse, we presuppose that there is an objective truth to be discovered, otherwise it's a waste of time.

No, the color of the sky is a certain wavelength. Whether it's blue or not is subjective. It's common that we'd all say it's blue, but now, it has passed through our perception - it has become a perception of reality that it is blue. The reality is that it is a certain wavelength. That wavelength corresponding to the color blue as we see it (instead of red, for example) is not so correct. Did it ever occur to you that some people may see the sky as a very minuscule but surely different shade of blue than you do, just because of slight changes in their eye structure? If it was objectively blue (the same blue you see), this would not be the case.

Blue by definition is that wavelength. Blue is a concept, referring to that identity.

The only thing we can agree on is that the wavelength is there - it's the same, it's objective. But this wouldn't correspond to morality now, would it? What do we measure for morality? Nothing. We judge an entire scenario - it's already became a perception of reality (judging), but we will never know the reality, as all we've got is our perception. Our perception determines if a certain scenario is good or bad (values). Ethical dilemmas wouldn't really be dilemmas now if ethics happened to be objective, would it?

We are perceiving reality... Humans have the faculty of reason, and reason is capable of gaining knowledge, knowledge including that about reality. If morality exists in reality, then we can know it.

Now, is it nonsensical to say the sky is blue? If we trace back to your argument, then yes, it is, because it's subjective. But I disagreed with that. Sometimes, subjective phenomena are just so obvious that we tend to take them for granted. Are they truly objective? Nope, but even you agree that the sky is blue. And I don't think it's nonsensical for you to say that. Although, Sean may!

Morality is supposed to answer a question: how should we live. If the answer to that question is: it's different for every person (subjective), well thanks so fucking much.

I agree that it's wrong, but I wouldn't use the word 'fact' so comfortably. Facts are for objective phenomena.

Do physical laws exist? (Laws of physics, etc.)

I would argue that those have biological/evolutionary components, and are instilled within us (except theft, babies do that all the time). But still, this means nothing for the scenarios. You're essentially saying that murder, rape, are intrinsically bad. Or, you're appealing to popularity.

They are bad because you initiate force.

You're missing the point - the man ISN'T initiating force. I agree to that! But the police are! Doesn't that mean that what the police are doing is wrong? After all, that's what you said - initiating force is immoral. But in this case, I don't think it's immoral for the police to initiate force.

If the police are initiating force, then they are being immoral. Why can't I initiate force? Remember police is an abstract concept, there are only people. Why can he initiate force, but I can't? Seems unfair, very unfair considering your system is trying to bring about the most fairness. Please don't tell me the government gives them authority to. That's like saying a group of powerful people allow other people to initiate force. Doesn't help.

Didn't understand the example appropriately. The police have initiated force - not the man running naked.

Did he trespass? If he did, then he has initiated force. If he didn't, then his behaviour is, don't take the terms literally, aesthetically unpleasant. It's the same with lying. If you lie, you do not initiate force, but it's unpleasant. If you are late, you do not initiate force, but it's unpleasant. These depend on the context on whether they are unpleasant or not. If you are running around naked because you are on fire, you're not doing anything unpleasant in a moral sense. Now, here's a scenario. Imagine someone tells you to stand in front of their car so they can run you over. You do, and they run you over. Did they initiate force? No, it was voluntary, and consensual. Was there behaviour aesthetically unpleasant? Yes, you ran someone over... But was the situation avoidable? Yes, why the fuck did you stand in front of the car?

Yes, do you not think that's fair?

Sure, common law typically is.

Yeah, in the article I gave you, he simply ran away because his parents banned him from playing Call of Duty - he was addicted to it. In any case, I do agree that education would solve problems like these. For now, they exist though, so this is just another element which makes children look like 'slaves'.

Look at that 38 minute, I think episode, and the series I gave you. It's not politics or anything, just facts. Ask yourself, If I asked the child to leave because I felt he was being abused/enslaved, would they say yes? If the answer is yes, then the child can voluntarily leave. If the answer is no, then they seem ok with it.

I disagree with the part that we shouldn't initiate force. I'd lead you back to the man running naked, or the man naked in the park, or whatever naked man you want (just try not to picture it too clearly, for your own good).

Answered.

Well, I kind of said it elsewhere. I judge based on the entire scenario. I look at the actions - I take each one in its context, and judge if it was moral/immoral. Then I look at the consequences, and see if they led to a good outcome/bad outcome. Then I weigh both sides out. If the actions were majorly moral (treating a few cancer patients), but the outcome was not (doing this to coax the hot nurse into having sex), then I weigh things out, and judge that the entire scenario is immoral. If the actions were 'majorly immoral' (police initiating force on naked man masturbating in the park) but the outcome was good (he gets his naked ass back into his home), then I weigh things out, and judge the entire scenario as moral. I really only think this is fair.

Terribly complex, and not good if someone wants to answer: how should I live. Again, you face a calculation problem. What objective system do you use to determine whether something is 'majorly moral'. Does this action get 5 points, and that consequences get 7 points, 5-7 = -2 so it's major immoral?

Ah, but you see, nutrients are a part of nutrition! Nutrients are essentially the units of nutrition. You need them, but the quantities you need them in are subjective. Also yes, for one to achieve a good lifestyle, you need good nutrition - but you're missing a vital point. You said good nutrition - how do we determine what is good nutrition? Sure, we know the obvious stuff, don't eat trans fats, eat in moderation, etc. Now, what about the non-obvious stuff? How much fiber should I eat for a healthy lifestyle? How much of this vitamin should I take? People study nutrition - yet 2 nutritionists will not give the same exact diet plan to, for example, David. Sure, David has goiter, he needs iodine, but how much would be sufficient?

Well, nutritionists are not omniscient, so of course they will disagree and make mistakes based on their interpretation of empirical evidence, and reasoning they employ. There, however, exists an optimal level of nutrients for a person, correct? Health just tries to discover that, and it has made large progress, but is still a while away.

Now for morality, what is its unit? Values! Based on values, we determine if a scenario is moral/immoral. Values deal with what we think is good or bad. It's very simple. Not everyone has the same values. We may argue that some values are 'objective' in a sense (no raping), but many of them aren't (ethical dilemmas). This is why I believe your quote is just making morality seem less objective than you think. We should live a moral life. But how do we determine what's moral and what's immoral? The way we determine that things are moral/immoral is subjective.

Values are the reason for our purposeful action. To act, is to act with reason (we're talking about intentional actions here). That reason is your value. Values do not necessarily deal with what is good or bad they are just reasons for purposeful action.

Since when are analogies supposed to be so literal? The point that the analogy is making is that you're saying morality is as objective as nutrition, when nutrition isn't so objective at all. The comparison that both have objective principles is faulty as well. I don't see how that quote helps your case to make morality seem objective.

If nutrition isn't objective, then drink potassium cyanide. Whether you agree, or disagree, the laws of chemistry will have its way with you. You don't control what happens to the food you put into your body, whatever you believe won't change the interaction between the physical laws of the universe, for which, nutrition and your body is bound by.

I'm honestly disappointed. You're putting words into my mouth, and then attacking them. I have said it probably twice in my previous post that I look at the entire scenario. This includes both the actions and the consequences. I have shown cases for each where we'd make what would appear to be a wrong decision if we just focused on one of them. I explicitly said to never focus on one of them. Yet you still insist that I have this mindset. In the example you gave, I wouldn't say it's moral because the action was unjustified theft, and after weighing things out, the consequence's benefits would be rendered insignificant to the entire scenario.

You face a calculation problem. You always apply your morality in hindsight, looking back on the past. How do you know whether an action is moral or not if you don't know the consequences? Perhaps you could do x, thinking good consciousnesses would come, when bad consequences come (see prohibition). Does this mean what you did was immoral?

And no, we're not only looking at things after they have happened - that's probably only the Bill Gates scenario. What about the man running naked on the street? When the police initiate force, their INTENT is to get him back to his home. That's where we base the morals. Essentially, the consequence they want is to get him to his home.

They want to enforce the law. What if he was homeless? When a police initiate force, their intent is to enforce the law.

When I treat a few cancer patients, my INTENT is to coax the hot nurse into having sex with me. If I explain the situation to you, it's only because you are not the stakeholder. But the intents exist, and have a big role in what consequence would occur. In fact, I never even said that I would treat a few cancer patients AND get to have sex with the hot nurse. I just said that I'm treating them only to try and coax the hot nurse into having sex with me. Nothing's definite. All that was explained was the intent. For my examples, try to put yourself in said person's shoes.

You still have no right to ban people from doing this ... even if it is morally unacceptable behaviour.

Explain ethical dilemmas.

Difference of opinion.

You're missing a vital point - even if morality is objective, even if it has objective principles, we can NEVER know them. Everything we speculate about them is subjective. Tell me, if morality has objective principles, how do we determine what they are? Based on what we feel?

I'll just copy this argument:

P1: Things are what they are.
P2: There is only one reality, namely the way things are.
P3: Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are.
P4: Man has capacity to reason and use logic.
C1: Knowledge is objective and attainable by man.

Reason.

In nature, yes. But our interpretation of the truth? Not necessarily. You're missing a point - can we ever determine its nature? In some cases, yes, in others, no.

What do you mean can we ever determine it's nature?

Yes! You're missing a point. We defined wavelength X as blue based on our perception. Weren't you making an argument that our perception can be subjective? It's very simple - perhaps we have defined wavelength X incorrectly. Maybe it is red. How can we ever know? We cannot - so we stick with the subjective claim that it is blue, but even being subjective, it's not nonsensical to say the sky is blue.

Red and blue are abstractions... When we say red, we refer to phenomonen x. When we say blue, we refer to phenomenon y. If we changed red to blue, green to black, and gray to yellow, we would be confused, but over time, it would be fine again, we would associate the perception of gray to be the now colour yellow.

Take a heater in a room. It exists objectively. You call it a dog. I call it a cat. We are talking about the same thing. If someone says what if it was a dog, what if it was a cat, what if it was a heater. We're talking about the same, god, damn, thing.

Naked man running on the street, naked man in the park, etc.

Dealt with.

So you're changing your argument? If I'm not mistaken, all you asked from me was for tangible evidence of agreement, and I gave it to you.

Coercion is still in the picture, do you agree, or not?

Furthermore, you're tracing things back way too far. Here's something I'd like to trace back then - if I'm not mistaken, laws, the government, etc. were all the society's choice. Our founding fathers wanted a government, previous societies have determined some of the new laws that are in effect today, etc. Perhaps we should blame them? No. The fact of the matter is it's done. You don't have to agree to anything. Just don't actually agree, and then complain about it.

False analogy. The founding fathers set government into action, but they could never forecast it's consequences. Government consists of humans. I can't be responsible for the action of your sons daughter... Also, I'm not taking things back too far.

Citizens do things because of laws (this includes businesses, as they are merely composed of citizens). Other citizens, abstracted to the government enforce these laws.

Citizens do x because of laws.
If there were no laws, citizens would not do x.

After all, we're talking about YOU here - not the businesses. You're not forced to work in a business. You force things upon yourself BASED ON YOUR OWN NEEDS. Don't blame the government for you wanting to work for a business. And don't blame them when you TANGIBLY AGREE to the conditions for said business.

You have evaded the fundamental point beforehand. The government forces individuals to register for a business to sell 99% of goods and services. The government forces businesses to put taxes in their contract by virtue of them requiring tax from businesses.

Here's what's happening. You are forced into a maze. You make so called voluntary decisions about where to move. Does that mean you consented to make those decisions? No. You were forced into the god damn maze.

1. Father prevents his child from watching porn even though he watches porn himself. He's still doing something good (given you disagree with porn).

Never said I disagree with porn...

2. How can you say trademarks/patents are silly?

Anti-free market. http://mises.org/daily/468

3. Provide logical proof of evolution.

Empirical evidence.

I think you have a lot of hope. First thing, I mentioned tolls myself - something I do not want. Right now, there are only tolls for huge highways. But don't forget, when the infrastructure is not controlled by the government anymore, ALL OF IT is eligible for 'profit'. Highways, bridges, streets, etc. don't last. They always need to be maintained. When a private company takes responsibility of this, surely they would want to make some profit, otherwise, they're just spending money. They may ask people to pay. If people are freely given the choice, they'd disagree. I mean, look at how many disagree for paying taxes! You make it seem like it'd be a negative social stigma to disagree, but I think it'd be a lot more common than you think.

Do you have a right to use other peoples private property without their consent?

You know, there's a gated community in brisbane somewhere, for the very rich. Everything, including the roads are owned privately. There are no tolls, and they allow everything in. Think if a small neighbourhood. Some entreupreneur decides to build 1000 houses, a small supermarket, etc, etc, everything that you need to live a nice comfortable life. The community is gated, and roads are all private. He wants to populate the place, so, he obviously sells the houses, and markets it well. Question: do you think he'd put tolls in? No, because it detracts from what people want.

"I used other methods than the social contract to 'prove' that the initiation of force is permitted in certain situations. This argument didn't solely rely on it."

This is referring to taxation.

And can you provide a logical proof of evolution?

Empirical evidence. I'm sure you could however, considering it's based on empirical evidence.

You see, you're mixing things up again - just like how you mixed science with morality before.

We are using logic, are we not?

You're using logic to deal with something that is highly related to emotions - morality. Emotions are a completely different way of knowing than reasoning. Can they still be used to acquire knowledge? Yes - this is what the theory of knowledge is all about. But how can I determine what will make someone happy? Is there some sort of logical proof for it? Of course not - there is empirical evidence, but even then, it's not so certain. Some people become happy from the most awkward things.

Emotions are a way of gaining knowledge about reality? Make a case for it please.

In any case, can you somehow provide logical proof that self defense is justified? Don't forget, with logical proof, the conclusion is ABSOLUTELY correct. If you are able to find a logical proof for self defense, and I'm able to find a counter example to your conclusion, then that means your entire logical proof is flawed.

Self defense is a right which is corrolary to the right to life which you agreed with from the beginning.

See this: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html

I can only provide you empirical evidence. Does that mean what I'm saying is false? After all, what can you provide me for the theory of evolution?

Empirical evidence is fine.

This is all because logical arguments don't do much for the real world. Do you agree that if it's raining, you should use an umbrella? Now try to prove that using a logical argument, and notice how hard it is.

I'm not saying to abandon empirical evidence... Reasoning encompasses both logic, and evidence.

Logic is absolute - your conclusions will be absolute. Ethical dilemmas will not exist. Surely, if it's been done before, we'd have some good answers for these dilemmas.

We have good answers, there will still be a difference of opinion. See people who still disagree with evolution.

Logic is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what I'm doing - it doesn't deal with the content. With the scenario. Let me give you an example. Our end is death. So, logically, there's no point for me to try and be protective of my life, or anyone else's life, etc. because death was going to happen anyways. But still, why do I have a problem when a bunch of kids die in Africa? It's all about emotion - something that's heavily related with morality. I feel sad for them. I sympathize. I say that it's wrong for those kids to die early. Would you not agree?

This is where morality gets obsfucated. I agree, it's an emotionally unsatisfying feeling. But, morality answers the question what should we do. It's not supposed to deal with what shouldn't happen.

Also, you still haven't shown why consequences can be used to evaluate morality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, and now, I want to talk about the free market - just out of pure interest. I am really concerned to how you can completely eliminate taxes, yet expect rights (such as the protection of others against crime) to exist. After all, what funds these people? I need to know what would fund the following:

1. Infrastructure
2. Policemen
3. Firemen
4. Military
5. Prison
6. Court
7. Public parks

The list goes on. If you agree to having a government which is only involved in protecting the rights of its citizens (no killing, stealing, etc.) you need a lot of the things I mentioned above (policemen, military, prison, the court, and whatnot). You also use the infrastructure quite a lot, and you may even need to use the firemen one day (hopefully not). Fact of the matter is that you don't pay for any of these things at all. Are you willing to drop taxes, and drop all of these public services as well? Don't forget - if you do, you may have to pay the next time your house catches on fire! That would suck - lose a house, and you'd have to pay?

Let me preface, protecting others from crime is not an obligation. That said, in my opinion, after the adjustment, crime will be naturally lower in a voluntaryist society. I'll prioritize the systems of 'governance' i want.

1. Anarcho-capitalism.
2. Minarchism; high social liberty, near perfect free market; government only controls polices, defense and courts (taxation is minimal, less than 10% or something).
3. Same social liberty we have now, but near perfect free market.
4. Present system.
100. Communism.

I'll try argue from an anarcho-capitalist perspecitve. How will the aforementioned be provided, and how they relate to the poor, and social issues. I won't go in order.

1. Courts. The first thing to note is all the criticism of the present legal system (not courts, but how they are today, remember, no government no statutes, only common law), for example, it's bias to the rich, and takes years to reach a verdict. So, from the get go, the way things are, courts already disadvantage the poor, something, which in a voluntaryist society would be lessened.

The second thing is that there are other dispute resolution outlets, such as mitigation, arbitration, which would definitely not go away in a free market; look at Judge Judy, a private arbitration court.

There is no reason to suggest that Courts would not exist in a free market without a government. When we talk about courts, we mean dispute resolution. For example, if someone has broken a contract, they could go to the courts. If someone initiated force, they could be sued to determine damages. Now, there is a need, a large part of courts in an anarcho-capitalist society is contract enforcement. There is a demand for this, to resolve the disputes that raise from a contract breach. This means that entrepreneurs would try to start a business, correct? It's not an assumption, if there is demand, you will see businesses in the free market trying to fill that demand.

So, a private court is established, and it will likely follow common law (it doesn't matter if it doesn't). There is a lot of incentive to follow common law for the simple reason that it has done a good job. There will be a lot of courts I'd say some better, some worse, as is the nature of business. For this example, I'll take the best courts. The court has been established, there are good judges, administration running everything, etc, etc. The only problem is consumers, since there will always be contracts violated, and they will need dispute resolution, they will probably go to courts, or arbitration and so on. 2 people voluntarily go to the court, sign a document saying that they cannot appeal (or maybe they can, and that the decision is final and must be honored). Long story short, decision is made. If the people honor their contract, the courts are a success. But there are problems, which you may have noticed.

What if the person decides not to agree with the courts decision?
What if the courts are corrupt, and are bias?

The first, in a voluntaryist society, there would be DROs, and people would be insured by them. The cost of your insurance is dependent on your credit rating. So, you sign a contract with them, covering rape damages, pollution damages, etc. If you keep being a pest to your DRO, your credit rating will reduce. If it reduces to the point where no DRO will insure you, then you cannot function in society, because it is likely they are bias. Remember, the courts have equal incentive to represent both the defendant and plaintiff equally as they are both private consumers.

Naturally, you can see how people are protected from crime. If they commit crime, they can no longer function in society. They are not dragged off the prison. If they try to leave their house, they will be hauled back for trespass because the roads are privately owned. They cannot flush their toilet, because services to their house are cut off. Short of running away, or owning a forest and catching your own animals, you're fucked (there are ways to legitimately get out of this, but it goes even further).

2. Public Parks: Public parks cannot exist because everything would be privately owned. That said, parks still exist. Again, the town example above. It is wise that an entreuprenurs would offer a park for all people to use for free, it is attractive to potential buyers of the houses. Again, you have charities that could purchase parks and let people walk in it, environmentalists for example. It's not unreasonable for private parks to be treated as if they were public in terms (obviously if you treat it poorly, your permission to stay is revoked, and you are removed for trespass). There is incentive for people using the park to keep it clean, so no dog shit everywhere!

3. Prison. Well, Prison could exist as contract. If you are found guilty, you agree to be thrown into this prison. I'm not a fan of that, I don't think that's the best way. The end goal you want is that when those people re enter society, they initiate force again. Now, back to the not being able to flush your toilet because DROs have made everyone cut services to you. That is a form of prison itself, but people will die... In the contract, there is likely to be a place where the DROs will take you away to a place where you have to work for money to give restitution for the damages you've done, you may be taught lessons on morality, maybe even educated (there's a correlation between low education and increased crime). You will be taught skills so you can re enter society. You could have a psychiatrist assess your mental state. It would likely be outsourced to a good private business, and once you've done your time, you will be permitted to re-enter society. Note how everything is voluntary. No one is forcing the terms of contracts to be the way they are. If you don't want to live in this system, there will be competing social structures, such as anarcho-communism, or whatever. Again, crime is already severely reduced considering education is of high quality. Also, I'd imagine the re offending rates would be significantly reduced than a straight 5 year sentence for theft.

Firemen 4. Again, private businesses. You call a number, hey, I have a fire, help. You pay a fee. If it's too high, other people will enter the market place and lower it to equilibrium. In the case of a voluntaryist society (gated community), there could be a free fire service (or not), that would look after the communities need. It's not far-fetched.

Police and Military 5, 6. I'm not going to cover this, I can't cover it as well. Page 37-50.

Infrastructure 7. They would be provided the exact same way as any other business is. Remember, where there is demand, there will be suppliers. Since infrastructure is an essential good, there will be A LOT of COMPETITION, that will definitely drive down the price, and quality will be very high due to lots of competition. Businesses will find it hard to jack up the prices because of this. Remember, you're paying prices for infrastructure anyway, through taxation. They can't be too much higher than it already is now. In addition, since there's no central bank, inflation will not increase as fast, so as time goes on, your purchasing power will be greater than if inflation were to continue due to the central bank.

Money 8. You didn't say this, but I think it's relevant. http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf Pg 119 - 129.

All in all, how will the poor benefit.

Education: It will be cheaper, and peoples incomes will increase due to no taxation. Will it get worse initially? Sure, there is no welfare, but you need to go through an adjustment period.

The poor? Well, first democracy is based on the will of the majority (it's supposed to be based on popular sovereignty anyway). If the will of the people is to educate the poor, just because the state vanishes, this will doesn't change. In fact, now that taxation is gone, people have much more money to continue donating. Since the majority of people care about the poor, they will be helped by the majority of people. This applies for welfare, health care, and so on.

You have to remember, nature owes you nothing, it's not in your debt. But people will still help you because humans are kind. It's a common misconception that capitalism is all about greed, and humans are naturally greedy. There is something called a harmony of interests. It's better to work together then to hang separately. The less poor there are, the more trade there is in an economy which stimulates economic growth. Poor people implies unskilled labour. The less poor people in society implies less unskilled labour, which businesses utilize which aids the production process making it more efficient.

It's a very important thing. Capitalists don't want people to be poor. You can't do anything with poor people, they don't buy your goods and services, and you end up giving money to them.

 

Should most definitely be legal. It's not like countries who allow euthanasia just let anyone walk in and end their lives. The suicide rates would not be much higher at all. When a person essentially can't do anything for themselves, such as the case above, what justification can be given to say "No, you have to suffer your paralysis." That's like choosing torture over death.

 

[Snoopchicken]

When you are not alive, you have no capacity.

What did I say? I agreed to what you were saying, but in different scenarios. Less favorable scenarios.

In principle, they can.

It's legal to ask them if you can leave to avoid paying taxes.

This is entirely irrelevant and a complete strawman. Whether or not I want to live with x people does not mean I do not own my own body, and the products of my labour.

Then you mixed things up, because we're not talking about owning yourself - we're talking about property rights.

The Great Depression? The GFC and Eurozone crisis? All because of fiat money; see Austrian theory of the business cycle.

Cherry-picking. Care to list the benefits of fiat money? Or do you want to use barter instead?

Dumb people would get scammed, that's about it... If someone is going to believe a t-shirt is worth as much as a house, I'd question whether or not they have rationality, perhaps evolution is diverging again.

So, you agree that it's okay to subjectively price the way we pay for money?

It's a contradiction. If you are against monopolies you are against all monopolies. Unless you want to commit the special pleading fallacy... Besides, in a free market, monopolies theoretically don't exist.

If you are against one monopoly, then you are against all monopolies. An absolute statement. The burden on me to disprove it is to find one counter-example. Replace monopoly with 'woman'.

If you are against one woman, then you are against all woman.
Ellen Degeneres is one woman.
If you are against Ellen Degeneres, then you are against all woman.
I am against Ellen Degeneres. Does this mean I'm against all woman? Nope - I love my mom, my sister, Jessica Alba, Mila Kunis, etc.

Maybe not the best way to put it - but I'm sure you get the gist. It's a hasty generalization.

We're presuming what entrepreneurs would do, each human has the capacity to be an entrepreneur. Also, if there is a slight profit margin, then the prices are only slightly above equilibrium, so it makes no difference to the consumer.

Business theory =/= real life. At least not necessarily.

Fiat currency, the way the central bank is handling it is the cause of social problems far worst than barter. The limitations of barter are more convenience based limitations.

You prefer barter over fiat currency?

Really? That's amazing.

I hear of even better stories in Syria! But there's less freedom, I believe.

Fantastic, the wonders of the free market!

Thank you!

So, it is illegal to have a business where interest is not taxed. Essentially, the government forces businesses to put in their contracts you must pay tax... The point is missed, coercion is behind everything.

There's always something behind something. When do we stop?

I'm pretty sure it's illegal? Yes, cash transactions are something the Government cannot trace, but it just testifies to the fact that people do not want to pay tax.

It can still be done, so there's no 'forcing' being done against your will here. If you argue against this, then the initiation of force is vague. More on this later when we reach the 'reformed infrastructure'.

That is fair, it is what I asked for, but you still haven't dealt with the problem that the government is forcing businesses to put it in their contracts. Businesses wouldn't normally put it in their contract, it's bad business. If they don't, they're fined.

Why do we have governments?

America doesn't exist, only people exist on the land that is abstracted to America.

Sonoma Mountain Elementary School does not exist - only people exist in that building that is abstracted to Sonoma Mountain Elementary School.

It creates a permanent underclass. It usually creates intergenerational poverty. It renders people entirely dependent on the state. It wastes natural resources on unproductive members of society. There is little incentive for people requiring welfare to go out and work (emphasis on little). Welfare is counter intuitive, is promotes not working, see positive reinforcement. People on welfare don't work, unemployment has a whole range of social and economic costs. Also, this isn't a good argument. x leads to a desirable result. Therefore x is desirable. Not necessarily.

It's nice theory. But the fact is, it's working.

You voluntarily went to school.

Imagine if a school had a monopoly in a region. Imagine this school made it a rule that every student must go to this school.

Not really, your parents kind of make you go to school. Even you were saying that before.

The founding fathers made a mistake. They were well aware of the dangers of government, you only need to see their quotes on government to see this. They were minarchists. Minarchy always leads to big statisim, because (a) people are free, so wealth is created most efficiently, which will then increase taxation revenue and big state ensues. Had they set up an anrcho-capitalist society, things may have been different.

So, perhaps when we blame the government, we should blame the people who passed the bill for tax laws?

Actually, it is a simple business interaction, x is being traded for y. Also, I don't believe selling drugs is a good thing. I also don't think we should point guns at people because we have disagreements, some drug dealers might think it's a good thing. Either way, the war on drugs will end up like prohibition. Why don't you ban alcohol? Why don't you ban cigarettes? They cause far more problems than marijuana.

I agree - why don't we ban alcohol or cigarettes? Either we ban them, or legalize marijuana. That's how I see it. Also, you're claiming some drug dealers might see this as a good thing - subjectivity. Finally, you're simplifying it (as logic always does). I trade x for y. Let's take a man selling guns. I trade a gun to a normal person for money - that's fine. I trade a gun to a person for money, knowing the person has psychological disorders and could perhaps cause mass murders - that's not fine. I think you'd agree. Logic disregards the scenario. It's useless. Your 'logical statement' implies trade is always fine. It's not.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said either makes you a criminal.

You did. I told you that you cannot leave the country if you are a criminal, and have the potential to harm other lives. You asked (after mocking me for a bit) about victim-less crimes. It sounded rhetorical. If the question was not rhetorical, then excuse me. But yeah, it just means my initial point was right.

It doesn't matter who fixes the problem, it doesn't matter whether a charity profits or not, the point is there is a problem, and you want it fixed. You say that this problem must be fixed by forcing other people to fix it. I'm saying this problem can be fixed voluntarily, with people binding together to fix it without coercion.

We're both assuming things hypothetically then. You think people would help. I don't. I have personal experience - this is of course, not sufficient. But this is all hypothetical anyways. How can we even debate it?

Also, the free market applies to charities. Charities that are inefficient, take too much profit will not be donated to by consumers. They will then collapse. Government is not subject to the market forces, so there's no telling whether or not it will be efficient. Besides, with the amount of taxation , you'd think poverty would already be fixed now.

This is not what I meant by efficient. I meant that a charity does not have as much workload as correcting the infrastructure of an entire country. They simply focus on one niche. Furthermore, the profit charity makes may be secretive - they do not tell others if they take profit.

At least poverty is improving. In some places (the USA), it's improving a great deal.

Yea, um, technology changes... The government should be doing an "excellent job", if they're going to steal from me, I'd rather the money be spent making something "excellent", than shitty. Though, I digress, I'd rather they not steal from me to begin with.

Question. Assume you're in a free market. A new bridge is being built in the area. Assume it's against your will to pay for said bridge. You voluntarily do not pay for it. According to your 'perfect' free market, you would be one of the few that didn't pay for it, so there would be social stigma against you. Isn't social stigma a type of force being initiated on you? You would feel pressure to pay for it, or pay for the next bridge.

And technology just expands possibilities, which also expands the amount of money you will have to pay.

How tolls/private roads operate depend on society. Nonetheless, you have no right to use someones else private property. If you disagree, go an use your neighbours car for the week. It should be noted, that there are some benevolent people, perhaps they won't charge for tolls (not everyone, sure, but some).

Tolls would operate based on the private enterprise that owns the street. The street is no longer public - it's private. They need to make profit. Tolls will be charged.

And I'm not sure that they wouldn't charge for their services. What kind of business would put money to build a bridge - for free?

A true free market works perfectly with 'real' humans. Also, if people do not agree to paying the tolls, then why should they have the right to use the private property. Do I have a right to use my neighbours bike? No. Why should I have the right to use their road then? The roads problem is dealed in the ebook btw, it's only a few pages.

Exactly! They wouldn't have the right to use the private property anymore. So guess what that means? They can't drive! Now, they're in a hole - they NEED to drive. What happens? They're FORCED to pay the tolls. Initiation of force. Didn't you say that was immoral?

Firstly, if a fight escalates between you and the bully, most people wouldn't shoot the bully. It simply doesn't happen. The steps from disagreeing to government to getting shot are very simple, and hardly controversial. The bully on the other hand, not so simply, and quite controversial.

It could happen. All I need is one counter-example to debunk an absolute statement.

Also, what is theft.

We can define it as the illegal taking of other peoples property without their freely given consent.

Taxation?

The legal taking of other peoples property without their freely given consent.

Adding freely is clever, but makes the definition useless now. Why? Because, for things like improving infrastructure, I doubt you'd ever get a CONSENSUS where people 'freely' give their consent. One example, as you said, is social stigma. Another, is that they won't be able to use the roads to get where they need - they're essentially forced into paying to use them. Some people may freely consent - others won't. The free market won't solve the problem of 'initiation of force'.

Yes, the police are initiating force. It's a problem that statism faces, and not voluntaryism. So, you can't really use it to criticize me because there is a solution under a voluntaryist society, but not a statist society.

What? Just judge if the scenario is moral or immoral. That's all I ask of you.

It's not an either or fallacy. Why is morality not subject to logic? Is it an illogical discipline? If it is, then we're both wasting our time by attempting to debate it logically. It's like trying to practice science with faith.

Morality is not subject 100% to logic. Logic is a way of knowing, but it's not the only one. Also, not necessarily are any other truths we perceive subject to 100% logic (I can think of possibly one now, being math). This is the theory of knowledge.

You can use logic to debate subjective issues. Example: You think all girls are beautiful. Objection: I find one counter-example where you believe a girl is ugly. Conclusion: Your initial statement is incorrect. That's what I'm doing, no? You made an absolute claim ('initiation of force' is always wrong), and I'm giving you counter-examples, where I'm asking what YOU think of the counter-example. Are I not asking you if the examples are moral/immoral? Irregardless of how you judge them - I'm asking for YOUR opinion in the end.

Again, do you think the initiation of force is morally unacceptable?

It is a statement. It is subject to the law of the excluded middle. You can break it down if you wish. It is not an either or fallacy, it is not structured like one at all, and the question is not fallacious. You can refer to what I said about consequences affecting the veracity of a statement.

Do you think Julia is beautiful? It is a statement. It is subject to the law of the excluded middle. She can either be beautiful, or not beautiful (ugly). She can't be 'okay', 'average looking', 'decent', etc. She cannot have days where she looks beautiful (with makeup), and days where she doesn't (without makeup). You see the problem? Logic keeps a lot of these details out, when in the real world, they exist, and should be considered. Otherwise, I just consider that unfair.

Is beauty subjective? Yup. I argue that morality (actually, let me use another term - what we view as good or bad, as that's really what's relevant here) is subjective too.

You haven't debunked it.

If I own a property, and a naked man runs on it, I can remove him for trespass. There is no initiation of force (this is not considered initiating force).

If the man is on a public road, it is a problem that statism faces, not the system I advocate.

This is irrelevant to statism. I gave you the scenario - there's a man running naked on the street. The street belongs to everyone - it's public. No 'trespassing' here. The police initiate force on him and force him back into his house. Do you believe this is moral or immoral? You implied you believe it was moral in your previous post - I don't even know why I have to ask again.

The police must, it's an expectation of that they arrest people who break the law (aside from their personal discretion). Ask yourself: Is the man trespassing? Trespassing violates property rights, so removing him is not an initiation of force, since the trespass was the initiation of force.

He's not trespassing - this is a public park. Being an expectation doesn't diminish the fact that the whole scenario could either be moral or immoral. There's still initiation of force from the police - you said this in a later point.

Sweetness doesn't exist. It's just an abstract concept used to describe the a sensation that we call sweet.

So, we argue that goodness or badness does not exist? Just as abstract concepts? I'm fine with that.

We have ethical dilemmas because people disagree. We also have disagreements in science, it doesn't change the truth. This is rational discourse, we presuppose that there is an objective truth to be discovered, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Do you think you will ever achieve an objective truth for what you're asking?

Blue by definition is that wavelength. Blue is a concept, referring to that identity.

Exactly, by definition. Definitions could be wrong. I can agree it's objective if you say, "The sky is this wavelength!" But I cannot agree that it's objective that the sky is blue - Sean, the color blind guy, think it's red, and I don't want to commit the appeal to popularity fallacy. However, I would agree with you that the sky is blue, even though, it is essentially subjective. Meaning that it's not entirely nonsensical to talk about subjective phenomena.

We are perceiving reality... Humans have the faculty of reason, and reason is capable of gaining knowledge, knowledge including that about reality. If morality exists in reality, then we can know it.

Reason can be false. This is me - 2000 years ago. I used my perception - the Earth looked flat. That information went to my reasoning - I assumed the Earth was flat (incorrect reasoning). Lots of people agreed with me. The few that didn't, I ignored (similar to how we ignore color blind Sean). However, reality is, the Earth is round. But, through the thought processes you mentioned, I made a mistake - and gained incorrect knowledge. I admit it was unnecessary for me to elaborate as such. I'm sure you know this!

Also, you first have to prove that morality exists - not that it's an abstract concept. Abstract concepts can be subjective, however.

Morality is supposed to answer a question: how should we live. If the answer to that question is: it's different for every person (subjective), well thanks so fucking much.

No, morality is supposed to answer this question - what is good/bad? What is right/wrong? It's in its definition.

Do physical laws exist? (Laws of physics, etc.)

Empirically - am I allowed to use empirical proof now, or must I still stick with logical proof?

Want to hear something funny? Isaac Newton's 3 laws - we all know them. These 3 laws are only proved empirically - there is no logical proof of them whatsoever! No math, no logic, nothing!

They are bad because you initiate force.

So, initiating force is always wrong (you have agreed to this). So, intrinsic values exist. So, that's contradictory to something you said before (that you reject intrinsic values).

In any case, I'd refer you to the naked man.

If the police are initiating force, then they are being immoral. Why can't I initiate force? Remember police is an abstract concept, there are only people. Why can he initiate force, but I can't? Seems unfair, very unfair considering your system is trying to bring about the most fairness. Please don't tell me the government gives them authority to. That's like saying a group of powerful people allow other people to initiate force. Doesn't help.

If you initiate force on the naked man (grab him so he stops running), you will not be punished. If you call the police, you will not be punished, yet you'd be the one who is 'initiating force', as you are the one who brought the matter to the police's attention in the first place. People don't normally initiate force because they're scared to take direct responsibility. But you can if you want. And it does happen.

Do you hear what you're saying? You're saying it's immoral for police to pull a naked man off the streets, or away from the park when he's masturbating. Come on. This is the problem when you just focus on one thing - 'initiation of force'. You have to look at the entire scenario. 'Logic' is hindering you from the details.

If you're saying 'initiation of force' is immoral PERIOD, you're agreeing to intrinsic values. You disagreed to intrinsic values before. You'd be contradicting yourself.

Did he trespass? If he did, then he has initiated force. If he didn't, then his behaviour is, don't take the terms literally, aesthetically unpleasant. It's the same with lying. If you lie, you do not initiate force, but it's unpleasant. If you are late, you do not initiate force, but it's unpleasant. These depend on the context on whether they are unpleasant or not. If you are running around naked because you are on fire, you're not doing anything unpleasant in a moral sense. Now, here's a scenario. Imagine someone tells you to stand in front of their car so they can run you over. You do, and they run you over. Did they initiate force? No, it was voluntary, and consensual. Was there behaviour aesthetically unpleasant? Yes, you ran someone over... But was the situation avoidable? Yes, why the fuck did you stand in front of the car?

Sounds to me that you're bending your definition now. If you're going to consider lying 'aesthetically unpleasant', so it's 'kind of immoral', then go back to the scenario with the mom lying to her son.

Also, this is about morality. If someone agreed to being run over a car, is it immoral for the person to actually run over him/her with a car? Let's not forget about euthanasia now. If someone agrees to be killed by drugs, or even by gunshot (aesthetically unpleasant), do you still consider euthanasia immoral?

Look at that 38 minute, I think episode, and the series I gave you. It's not politics or anything, just facts. Ask yourself, If I asked the child to leave because I felt he was being abused/enslaved, would they say yes? If the answer is yes, then the child can voluntarily leave. If the answer is no, then they seem ok with it.

If the government asked Bill Gates to leave because they felt that they were being abusive to him, would he say yes? If the answer is yes, then Bill Gates can voluntarily leave. If the answer is no (it would be), then he's okay with it. And you still claim it's slavery. The example still holds.

Terribly complex, and not good if someone wants to answer: how should I live. Again, you face a calculation problem. What objective system do you use to determine whether something is 'majorly moral'. Does this action get 5 points, and that consequences get 7 points, 5-7 = -2 so it's major immoral?

You face a problem as well - assuming my mindset is like yours. I said that morality is subjective. If it were objective, I'd be doing calculations. But I don't believe it is. There are no calculations, in the sense you're trying to elicit.

Terribly complex is not an excuse to rule it out. You know this.

Well, nutritionists are not omniscient, so of course they will disagree and make mistakes based on their interpretation of empirical evidence, and reasoning they employ. There, however, exists an optimal level of nutrients for a person, correct? Health just tries to discover that, and it has made large progress, but is still a while away.

No one's omniscient - would we ever know the 'true' morality, if it exists? We have to prove it exists too - not just an abstraction.

Values are the reason for our purposeful action. To act, is to act with reason (we're talking about intentional actions here). That reason is your value. Values do not necessarily deal with what is good or bad they are just reasons for purposeful action.

That's not what the definition of values is. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/values.html

If nutrition isn't objective, then drink potassium cyanide. Whether you agree, or disagree, the laws of chemistry will have its way with you. You don't control what happens to the food you put into your body, whatever you believe won't change the interaction between the physical laws of the universe, for which, nutrition and your body is bound by.

You ignored what I said. I said that some things in nutrition are obvious - don't eat trans fats, don't overtake a certain vitamin, etc. Obviously, don't drink potassium cyanide is one of those. Although, surely it's possible that someone could drink potassium cyanide and not die. What gives? I thought this was objective! If P, then Q. If you drink potassium cyanide, then you die. Don't forget, one counter-example negates the entire statement - the case for its objectivity.

You face a calculation problem. You always apply your morality in hindsight, looking back on the past. How do you know whether an action is moral or not if you don't know the consequences? Perhaps you could do x, thinking good consciousnesses would come, when bad consequences come (see prohibition). Does this mean what you did was immoral?

It's down to beliefs. Morality leads to values which leads to the definition of values which includes the word 'beliefs'. I would refer to ethical dilemmas again.

And no, the outcome doesn't necessarily have to happen. It could be the intent. If the hot nurse refuses to sleep with me, I'd still consider the entire scenario immoral.

They want to enforce the law. What if he was homeless? When a police initiate force, their intent is to enforce the law.

When I see a man running naked on the street, I may feel the moral obligation to tell him to go home. Am I enforcing the law?

If he was homeless is adding a new element into the scenario. There are a pool of examples. Some of these examples are corroborative to your initial, absolute statement. Some are counter-examples. All I need is one counter-example to prove your statement wrong. I found one. You found an example that corroborates your statement. Who cares? The counter-example still exists.

You still have no right to ban people from doing this ... even if it is morally unacceptable behaviour.

That's off the point. Do you agree it's morally unacceptable?

Difference of opinion.

Why?

I'll just copy this argument:

P1: Things are what they are.
P2: There is only one reality, namely the way things are.
P3: Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are.
P4: Man has capacity to reason and use logic.
C1: Knowledge is objective and attainable by man.

Reason.

I could argue against P3. Knowledge is not only obtainable by reason - it could be obtainable by perception, language, and, yes, even emotion. This is the theory of knowledge. More on that.

What do you mean can we ever determine it's nature?

For the sky, we can - it's a certain wavelength. Now, explain to me how we can determine something is moral/immoral.

Red and blue are abstractions... When we say red, we refer to phenomonen x. When we say blue, we refer to phenomenon y. If we changed red to blue, green to black, and gray to yellow, we would be confused, but over time, it would be fine again, we would associate the perception of gray to be the now colour yellow.

Take a heater in a room. It exists objectively. You call it a dog. I call it a cat. We are talking about the same thing. If someone says what if it was a dog, what if it was a cat, what if it was a heater. We're talking about the same, god, damn, thing.

Am I denying the wavelength exists? This is COMPLETELY off the point. We're focusing on this sentence - 'the sky is blue'. Not 'the sky is this wavelength'. We say this is objective (the sky is blue), but it's not, because the word blue, which you agree is an abstraction, is in it. Are you not agreeing that an abstraction means that it's being perceived? Didn't we say that the way the brain perceives information could be subjective?

The heater is innately machinery with the function of outputting heat. But now, when the heater actually outputs heat, are our definitions of that heat not subjective? "It's too hot!" "It's too cold!"

Now, you're given a wavelength. "It's blue!" "It's red!" In any case, ignore red. You didn't address something I said - did it occur to you that even for normal people, we could each perceive this wavelength of blue as a different shade of blue? Even if the differences are minimal, they exist. Differences mean it's not objective, though. If I was able to take a picture of what I was seeing through my brain, open it with Adobe Photoshop, and attempt to analyze what shade of blue I was seeing, it could be different than what another person sees.

So, maybe the wavelength corresponds to a certain correct shade of blue. But how can we ever determine what this correct shade is?

Dealt with.

Not really.

Coercion is still in the picture, do you agree, or not?

The better question is if I agree that coercion is always wrong.

False analogy. The founding fathers set government into action, but they could never forecast it's consequences. Government consists of humans. I can't be responsible for the action of your sons daughter... Also, I'm not taking things back too far.

Citizens do things because of laws (this includes businesses, as they are merely composed of citizens). Other citizens, abstracted to the government enforce these laws.

Citizens do x because of laws.
If there were no laws, citizens would not do x.

Why would you complain if there's tangible agreement? If I had terms and conditions, and you agreed to them, no matter what you're circumstance, I expect you to follow them. It's very simple. You're going to tell me 'it was my only option, I was forced'. Well, I don't think a true free market would prevent this either. Go above to infrastructure.

You have evaded the fundamental point beforehand. The government forces individuals to register for a business to sell 99% of goods and services. The government forces businesses to put taxes in their contract by virtue of them requiring tax from businesses.

Here's what's happening. You are forced into a maze. You make so called voluntary decisions about where to move. Does that mean you consented to make those decisions? No. You were forced into the god damn maze.

You force yourself into that maze. You want to sell products in America - a land that was acquired by the founding fathers. Well guess what? These founding fathers made conditions for America. If you accept them, don't complain. If you don't, don't make a business. These are YOUR needs. You're not forced into anything unless you force yourself. What's your solution? We've discussed this - you can freely leave. If people initially objected, there'd be no businesses, and surely a reform in the law would occur. But they didn't. You want to rewrite history all for yourself. It's unfair for you to be the only business that's not paying taxes, where the other ones are obliged to because they have already agreed.

Never said I disagree with porn...

That's not what I meant. When I say 'given you disagree with porn', it means 'assume you disagree with porn'. Here's something better - replace porn with something you disagree with. Replace it with many things. If you cannot find one thing that works for you, I guess we don't agree. But then read what I said above about the hasty generalization.

2. How can you say trademarks/patents are silly?

So in a free market, there are no patents? If I come up with an idea, everyone else is allowed to sell my idea? Excuse me if I didn't understand. I haven't read the eBook you asked for me to read. I'll try to.

Empirical evidence.

You told me to refrain from empirical proof and provide logical proof. Empirical evidence is not logical proof of the theory of evolution.

Do you have a right to use other peoples private property without their consent?

You know, there's a gated community in brisbane somewhere, for the very rich. Everything, including the roads are owned privately. There are no tolls, and they allow everything in. Think if a small neighbourhood. Some entreupreneur decides to build 1000 houses, a small supermarket, etc, etc, everything that you need to live a nice comfortable life. The community is gated, and roads are all private. He wants to populate the place, so, he obviously sells the houses, and markets it well. Question: do you think he'd put tolls in? No, because it detracts from what people want.

You don't - hence why tolls would be needed. Something I don't want. Against my will! Don't force me to pay! After all, just driving on a bridge doesn't mean I agree with being charged tolls. Would you not agree - it's similar to something you said before. Don't say 'voluntarily' - many people NEED to drive. I'd be essentially forced to pay.

And no, you got it wrong with the gated community! Residents often pay for gated communities - and this can be very secretive too (electric bill, water bill, or sometimes, you're just directly required). Read: http://www.ehow.com/list_5905753_pros-cons-gated-communities.html

Also, there are normally homeowner associations in such communities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

The people in a gated community may pay because they're rich - plus they want the other benefits associated with being in said gated community (some are essentially even forced to, if they're celebrities). But in regular society, you will have everyone (including frugal people from the middle class, and the poor) who may NOT want to pay. Don't forget, when you join a gated community, you agree to paying.

This is referring to taxation.

You asked for logical proof of the social contract. But anyways, back to taxation.

I've given empirical evidence of agreeing to pay taxes. I've given many counter-examples to absolute claims that imply taxation is immoral (such as the fact that moral deeds cannot be achieved through immoral means). Those claims were essentially the premise of your argument - and they're absolute. We know that even if one counter-example exists, the absolute claim is incorrect, and the entire argument must either be re-formulated, or dropped.

Empirical evidence. I'm sure you could however, considering it's based on empirical evidence.

So why do you restrict me from using empirical proof when you can use it for the theory of evolution to prove its validity?

We are using logic, are we not?

Is logic the only way of knowing?

Emotions are a way of gaining knowledge about reality? Make a case for it please.

Yup, easy! First, the theory of knowledge says there are 4 ways of knowing: perception, reason, emotion, and language. It's not necessary that all are mutually exclusive - they can all work together. I would never argue that morality is pure emotion - I said it deals with emotions, and of course, language and perception are included. It also deals with reasoning. But emotion is in there - it's hard to make 'proof' for morality because of this.

Now, here's an example. There exists a baby. We know a baby has very low reasoning (you would argue they're not rational - I believe you said this before), and very low language, so we're essentially isolating perception and emotion (babies don't lack emotion - we know this). The baby touches a very hot stove - perception. The baby feels pain, and begins to feel sad, and cries (emotion). The baby learns that the stove is hot (objective truth), and learns to never touch the hot stove again. Perhaps reasoning was vaguely used in the last step. Fact of the matter is that emotion is included as a way of knowing (a vital one, in this case), and emotion paves the way for subjectivity.

Self defense is a right which is corrolary to the right to life which you agreed with from the beginning.

See this: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...cs_Rights.html

Let's get to the gist here - I asked for logical proof that self defense is right. With logical proof, your conclusion will be absolute. Do you believe such a logical proof exists? If yes, then that means this scenario is morally right as well:

I punch someone in the face. He uses self defense, and punches me back. I use self defense again, and stab him with a knife. He uses self defense again, and hits me in the face with brass knuckles. I use self-defense, and shoot him. In the end, we were both right! Self defense is ALWAYS right, DESPITE initiation of force being in the scenario.

You see - this is the problem with logical proof. It doesn't focus on the details. You make a judgement for everything, when we know in real life, cases can be really specific. This isn't math. With logic, as I said, we ignore the details, which I believe is inappropriate when we deal with morality.

Empirical evidence is fine.

You said earlier you wanted logical proof, not empirical proof?

"It all comes back to the social contract, it's primary purpose was to legitimise the governments initiation of force on its citizens. You need to prove that (by proof, I mean logical proof, not empirical proof)."

I'm not saying to abandon empirical evidence... Reasoning encompasses both logic, and evidence.

You did, and it confused me quite a lot. Perhaps, because chronologically, I saw that previous statement first, and made the false assumption that you wanted me to abandon empirical evidence altogether.

We have good answers, there will still be a difference of opinion. See people who still disagree with evolution.

Would you argue that debates against evolution are similar to debates for ethical dilemmas? I think not. 'Smart', 'not delusional' people may share the exact opposite view that you do for an ethical dilemma.

This is where morality gets obsfucated. I agree, it's an emotionally unsatisfying feeling. But, morality answers the question what should we do. It's not supposed to deal with what shouldn't happen.

Also, you still haven't shown why consequences can be used to evaluate morality.

I took this part out. I reedited something in:

"Also, you're claiming that empirical evidence is insufficient. We're missing something though - I'm not using empirical evidence to make a case. I'm using them as COUNTER-EXAMPLES to claims you have made. Absolute claims (without logical proof, mind you). If I'm not mistaken, in logic, isn't this more than enough for me to prove what you said is wrong? Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample"

You're making the claim here - moral deeds cannot be achieved through immoral means (or 'initiation of force' is always wrong). I'm providing counter-examples to that. Irregardless of how I determine if the scenario is moral/immoral, I'm asking for YOUR opinion. You just justify with a different reason why it's moral. In the end, the counter-example is there. It cannot exist if your original premise is absolutely true, yet it does. What does that mean?

Let me preface, protecting others from crime is not an obligation. That said, in my opinion, after the adjustment, crime will be naturally lower in a voluntaryist society. I'll prioritize the systems of 'governance' i want.

Can you logically prove crime will be lower? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just really interested.

2. Minarchism; high social liberty, near perfect free market; government only controls polices, defense and courts (taxation is minimal, less than 10% or something).

Wait! You're agreeing to taxes. I thought taxation was theft. Why do you agree to it here?

1. Courts. The first thing to note is all the criticism of the present legal system (not courts, but how they are today, remember, no government no statutes, only common law), for example, it's bias to the rich, and takes years to reach a verdict. So, from the get go, the way things are, courts already disadvantage the poor, something, which in a voluntaryist society would be lessened.

I didn't copy and paste all of this for the sake of space. Now, I didn't say courts wouldn't exist. I simply asked for you to provide me a method in which they'd get paid. Who would pay the judge? You need to qualify to be a judge - you can't just 'volunteer'. I don't think private enterprises would make courts - where's the profit to be made? Businesses look for demand - they also look for profit. Unless they hire lawyers and whatnot - things people already pay for in court. Then I can see it working.

2. Public Parks: Public parks cannot exist because everything would be privately owned. That said, parks still exist. Again, the town example above. It is wise that an entreuprenurs would offer a park for all people to use for free, it is attractive to potential buyers of the houses. Again, you have charities that could purchase parks and let people walk in it, environmentalists for example. It's not unreasonable for private parks to be treated as if they were public in terms (obviously if you treat it poorly, your permission to stay is revoked, and you are removed for trespass). There is incentive for people using the park to keep it clean, so no dog shit everywhere!

Yup, I agree with the fact that it would be used as an attraction. But in the scenario above (gated community), those parks are essentially being funded.

3. Prison. Well, Prison could exist as contract. If you are found guilty, you agree to be thrown into this prison. I'm not a fan of that, I don't think that's the best way. The end goal you want is that when those people re enter society, they initiate force again. Now, back to the not being able to flush your toilet because DROs have made everyone cut services to you. That is a form of prison itself, but people will die... In the contract, there is likely to be a place where the DROs will take you away to a place where you have to work for money to give restitution for the damages you've done, you may be taught lessons on morality, maybe even educated (there's a correlation between low education and increased crime). You will be taught skills so you can re enter society. You could have a psychiatrist assess your mental state. It would likely be outsourced to a good private business, and once you've done your time, you will be permitted to re-enter society. Note how everything is voluntary. No one is forcing the terms of contracts to be the way they are. If you don't want to live in this system, there will be competing social structures, such as anarcho-communism, or whatever. Again, crime is already severely reduced considering education is of high quality. Also, I'd imagine the re offending rates would be significantly reduced than a straight 5 year sentence for theft.

Okay, but this is off the point - who will pay for this prison, or this 'service' of prison you're imagining?

Firemen 4. Again, private businesses. You call a number, hey, I have a fire, help. You pay a fee. If it's too high, other people will enter the market place and lower it to equilibrium. In the case of a voluntaryist society (gated community), there could be a free fire service (or not), that would look after the communities need. It's not far-fetched.

Yeah but, it's free now. There's an important thing we're missing - firemen go to their jobs everyday. They go through rigorous training. They get paid a salary - not based on every house they put off. This salary is funded through taxes. Now, let's say houses catching fire isn't as common as we think it is - especially in this new society, where people are more educated. This would mean that for firemen, there is a vertical market. The private enterprise would have to charge significantly higher to pay the firemen an appropriate salary, or else the firemen will quit, and work as perhaps a waiter - where they wouldn't risk their lives, and they would make more money. This means the 'fireman business' would fail, because there isn't a lot of demand. So, we can lose an important service in the society. This isn't as simple as 'yes, we'll price things down where the consumer will buy for sure'.

Police and Military 5, 6. I'm not going to cover this, I can't cover it as well. Page 37-50.

Okay.

Infrastructure 7. They would be provided the exact same way as any other business is. Remember, where there is demand, there will be suppliers. Since infrastructure is an essential good, there will be A LOT of COMPETITION, that will definitely drive down the price, and quality will be very high due to lots of competition. Businesses will find it hard to jack up the prices because of this. Remember, you're paying prices for infrastructure anyway, through taxation. They can't be too much higher than it already is now. In addition, since there's no central bank, inflation will not increase as fast, so as time goes on, your purchasing power will be greater than if inflation were to continue due to the central bank.

Fact is, profit has to be made. Tolls will exist everywhere. Do you really want that?

All in all, how will the poor benefit.

Education: It will be cheaper, and peoples incomes will increase due to no taxation. Will it get worse initially? Sure, there is no welfare, but you need to go through an adjustment period.

The poor? Well, first democracy is based on the will of the majority (it's supposed to be based on popular sovereignty anyway). If the will of the people is to educate the poor, just because the state vanishes, this will doesn't change. In fact, now that taxation is gone, people have much more money to continue donating. Since the majority of people care about the poor, they will be helped by the majority of people. This applies for welfare, health care, and so on.

You have to remember, nature owes you nothing, it's not in your debt. But people will still help you because humans are kind. It's a common misconception that capitalism is all about greed, and humans are naturally greedy. There is something called a harmony of interests. It's better to work together then to hang separately. The less poor there are, the more trade there is in an economy which stimulates economic growth. Poor people implies unskilled labour. The less poor people in society implies less unskilled labour, which businesses utilize which aids the production process making it more efficient.

It's a very important thing. Capitalists don't want people to be poor. You can't do anything with poor people, they don't buy your goods and services, and you end up giving money to them.

If anything, I think a true free market would only get rid of the middle class, and lead to a sharp contrast between the rich and poor. I'm only speaking based on personal experience, but it's something to think about.

I'll try to get to the book. I'm interested about learning more of this 'true free market' you speak of.

 

[malakadang]

Edit: For the contract issue, and whether it's voluntary or not.

We need to apply the law of the excluded middle. Also, if there is coercion involved, then the actions are not truly voluntary.
So, question: Is the signing of the contract voluntary (truly, entirely, absolutely voluntary, if there is any bit of coercion involved, then it is non-voluntary, not necessarily involuntary).

I just need to show that there is a bit of coercion in the process, which would render the decision not voluntary. The fact of the matter is, there are laws, which the government enforces irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with the law. A person, if he wants to start a business must register with the government because it was a law. If he disagree, he must still register or punishments because he broke a law (that he did not agree to). So, that's the first bit of coercion: You must follow the law, or, you must not disobey the law. The law classifies as institutionalised coercion. It is not in dispute that the government uses intimidation to get people to follow the law right? Namely, if you do not follow the law you will be punished. It's like me saying if you do not give me your lunch money, I'll beat you up. Anyway, since that bit of coercion exists, then the actions of mine are not voluntary.

Out of curiosity, how does the government make people follow it's laws?

The last thing is that, we need to speak in concretes. The government is just a group of people (there are buildings involved but...). This group of people has the legal right to initiate force, it makes laws and if people break them, they are punished.

So, why do the rules of this group of people have to be followed?
Why can't I make make my own rules, and punish people who do not follow them?
Why can this group initiate force, but another group cannot?
Who's going to 'watch the watchers? If humans are greedy/bad/powerhungry, they will typically gravitate to positions of power; how can we have greedy/bad/powerhungry people rule us?

It'd be nice if you could answer these questions individually please, I'll try go about this a different way (though I'll likely fail).

Here are my answers:

1. The rules of that group of people shouldn't have to be followed, unless you voluntarily consent to follow them. This consent must be formal in the sense that it is conscious, a contract, even a verbal one, or something (it cannot be 'implied').
2. You can't because those people did not voluntarily consent to be governed by your rules. You would be initiating force on them.
3. They shouldn't be allowed to, because the initiation of force is morally wrong.
4. It is folly to claim that humans are bad (being general), therefore they must be governed. Because, there will be bad people governing good people. Furthermore, bad people typically tend to be power-hungry, and they will naturally gravitate to a position of power, so you have very bad people governing good people. It is essentially saying that because humans can be bad, something that can be bad must govern those that can be bad because they can be bad. It is nonsensical. (There is a more coherent explanation of this in that book I was talking about). Actually, it's accepted that this is a problem with government, nothing watches the watchers, only anarcho-capitalism recognises the significance of the problem, and attempts to solve it.

(Just cut anything out below dealing with this contract situation so we can save space).

It's legal to ask them if you can leave to avoid paying taxes.

It's also legal for them to deny you that right to leave, in principle.

Look, if you don't have your passport, you will find it very hard to leave. If you do, they can in principle still prevent you from leaving, all in the name of national security.

Then you mixed things up, because we're not talking about owning yourself - we're talking about property rights.

What does people walking have to do with property rights? Property rights is merely an extension of owning yourself, it's just that you own the effects of your labour. If you pick up a stick, you can say I own this stick. If use many sticks to make a house-like strucutre, you can say, I own this house. If you say hey I'll mow your low of $20, then you have sold your labour for the purposes of obtaining the $20, which you now own. It has nothing to do with mexicans walking around near you...

Cherry-picking. Care to list the benefits of fiat money? Or do you want to use barter instead?

This is not cherry picking, I said there were negative effects, you said they don't compare to barter...
Benefits: It's more convenient, and can allow wealth to be created easier.

So, you agree that it's okay to subjectively price the way we pay for money?

If someone wants to trade cars for chairs, tables for statues, books for paper, or things for money, I do not care. Trade is trade, money is a medium of exchange, a common one at that. That's how trade works, people value things differently.

If you are against one monopoly, then you are against all monopolies. An absolute statement. The burden on me to disprove it is to find one counter-example. Replace monopoly with 'woman'.

If you are against monopolies you are against all monopolies.

If you are against women, you are against all women.

Sounds right to me (woman is singular, monopolies is plural, I'm against all monopolies, plural, not just one, singular). Now, you can add a caveat on that. I'm against most women, or these women. If you do not specify, Analytically, you are against all women.

If you are against one woman, then you are against all woman.
Ellen Degeneres is one woman.
If you are against Ellen Degeneres, then you are against all woman.
I am against Ellen Degeneres. Does this mean I'm against all woman? Nope - I love my mom, my sister, Jessica Alba, Mila Kunis, etc.

You've equivocated a plural with a singular.

Maybe not the best way to put it - but I'm sure you get the gist. It's a hasty generalization.

Not at all.

Business theory =/= real life. At least not necessarily.

What? They try to explain real life phenomenon. It's like saying Evolution =/= real life. Or subjective theory of value =/= real life...

You prefer barter over fiat currency?

Don't create a false dilemma, I prefer neither. You can have money without fiat currency.

I hear of even better stories in Syria! But there's less freedom, I believe.



Thank you!

I'm really interested actually, I'm finding it a little hard to believe the staunch difference between the media's' (which obviously is a proponent of propaganda) representation and actuality.

There's always something behind something. When do we stop?

We didn't go back so far though, and by cause we are also talking about some form of accountability. So, businesses are forced to do x. Who are they forced by? They are forced by statute laws, Who creates statute laws? Government.

It can still be done, so there's no 'forcing' being done against your will here. If you argue against this, then the initiation of force is vague. More on this later when we reach the 'reformed infrastructure'.

Tax evasion can also be done, it's just very very risky when the pen hits paper.

Why do we have governments?

Originally, it was protect the rights and liberty of the people. It is also probably out of the common belief, that humans are bad/greedy/chaotic, that we needed governance. Now remember, a government can exist without initiating force. It's against the definition (because governments all initiate force), but if a government didn't initiate force, we'd have no reason to call it government.

Sonoma Mountain Elementary School does not exist - only people exist in that building that is abstracted to Sonoma Mountain Elementary School.

Correct.

It's nice theory. But the fact is, it's working.

A statement is not an argument. Also, you might have a skewed definition of working. Is poverty going down? Ok, according to your statistics, it is. How about the lower class?

Not really, your parents kind of make you go to school. Even you were saying that before.

I was assuming this was a private school. In the case though, yes, the initiation of force is behind it all. You have to remember though, the initiation of force has to have someone against that use of force. If I already want to go to school, then it's voluntary. If I didn't want to go to school however, then it's involuntary.

So, perhaps when we blame the government, we should blame the people who passed the bill for tax laws?

People, by that, I mean people not trained in the law shouldn't be contributing to the law making process. It's like how non-trained people should't be performing surgery. Popular opinion =/= the most logical outcome. Also, call government what it is: people.

I agree - why don't we ban alcohol or cigarettes? Either we ban them, or legalize marijuana. That's how I see it. Also, you're claiming some drug dealers might see this as a good thing - subjectivity. Finally, you're simplifying it (as logic always does). I trade x for y. Let's take a man selling guns. I trade a gun to a normal person for money - that's fine. I trade a gun to a person for money, knowing the person has psychological disorders and could perhaps cause mass murders - that's not fine. I think you'd agree. Logic disregards the scenario. It's useless. Your 'logical statement' implies trade is always fine. It's not.

Trade is trade. In your scenario, should the gun person have done that? No. Does that mean we need gun control? No. Does this example show that trade isn't trade? No.

You did. I told you that you cannot leave the country if you are a criminal, and have the potential to harm other lives. You asked (after mocking me for a bit) about victim-less crimes. It sounded rhetorical. If the question was not rhetorical, then excuse me. But yeah, it just means my initial point was right.

I was being dead serious about victim-less crimes. I don't believe people are criminals because fuck or watch people screwing.

We're both assuming things hypothetically then. You think people would help. I don't. I have personal experience - this is of course, not sufficient. But this is all hypothetical anyways. How can we even debate it?

Ok, we have a problem. Do you think it's ok to coerce people into solving that problem, or let people voluntarily solve it?
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

". Contrary to Okun, public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each
dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as
much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data,Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents
of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the
poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split."

Look. Democracy is popular soverignty. Majorty of people want the poor looked after. When state goes, do you think most people will suddenly change their views? I doubt it. Given their increased income, and the relatively more cost effective nature of private charities (see above), I'd say it would be easier to fill the gap welfare brings.

This is not what I meant by efficient. I meant that a charity does not have as much workload as correcting the infrastructure of an entire country. They simply focus on one niche. Furthermore, the profit charity makes may be secretive - they do not tell others if they take profit.

I don't think it matters whether they make a profit or not. In a free market, you'll have many charities. People will only give to the most reputable, and the most reputable are likely to make the least profit.

At least poverty is improving. In some places (the USA), it's improving a great deal.

This may be interesting: http://mises.org/daily/1126

Question. Assume you're in a free market. A new bridge is being built in the area. Assume it's against your will to pay for said bridge. You voluntarily do not pay for it. According to your 'perfect' free market, you would be one of the few that didn't pay for it, so there would be social stigma against you. Isn't social stigma a type of force being initiated on you? You would feel pressure to pay for it, or pay for the next bridge.

No, social stigma refers to negative sanctions (http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2s5an2.htm), so it's not an initiation of force (dependent obviously on the sanction, a frown is a negative sanction). Whether you should contribute to the bridge would depend on your contracts, and a whole variety of factors. If you are in a gated community, and they want to build a bridge, and you use that bridge, you should pay. If you do not use that bridge you say hey, I don't use this bridge. People probably won't negatively sanction you for that.

And technology just expands possibilities, which also expands the amount of money you will have to pay.

Technology increases productivity, standard of living, quality of life (by making the production process less labour intensive) , and so on. By virtue of higher quality good or service, yes, you'll pay a higher price. This doesn't sound unreasonable. If a man's productivity (I'll be arbitrary) is 5, as in he mows 5 lawns in an hour, and another man's productivity is 10, it's reasonable to pay the man with a productivity of 10 more.

Tolls would operate based on the private enterprise that owns the street. The street is no longer public - it's private. They need to make profit. Tolls will be charged.

Not necessarily, I've shown examples below in a gated community. Remember, a mall is a private enterprise, are you charged on entry, or for using the toilets? No, I wonder why?

And I'm not sure that they wouldn't charge for their services. What kind of business would put money to build a bridge - for free?

A bridge makes getting from a to b a lot easier. Prior to the bridge being built, you would be unable to get from a to b. Assuming this bridge is just an entrepreneur trying to save the extra 20 minutes most people would have to commute to get to their destination, he might build that bridge all by himself, and charge a toll. This seems perfectly reasonable, if you don't want to use the bridge, use the method you've always been using.

If this is in a gated community, and everyone wants a bridge, then those that use it would likely contribute. If they don't then a bridge doesn't get built, it's that simple. Clearly they have competition between wants. They want to keep their money more than building a bridge, which is perfectly fine.

Exactly! They wouldn't have the right to use the private property anymore. So guess what that means? They can't drive! Now, they're in a hole - they NEED to drive. What happens? They're FORCED to pay the tolls. Initiation of force. Didn't you say that was immoral?

They don't have the right to use other peoples private property without their freely given consent. If they have a car, they can drive. If they don't, and no one wants to lend them one, they can't. Also, I don't see how paying tolls is an initiaton of force, you don't seem to understand what it means. A person charging you from using their private property is not initiating force.

It could happen. All I need is one counter-example to debunk an absolute statement.

Right, but you haven't done it satisfactorily. Look at Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's laws of motions. Einstein's explained the world better, that doesn't mean we threw Newton's laws out, to the contrary, it's still widely used in engineering.

Adding freely is clever, but makes the definition useless now. Why? Because, for things like improving infrastructure, I doubt you'd ever get a CONSENSUS where people 'freely' give their consent.

It doesn't concern those people?

One example, as you said, is social stigma.

Social stigma is not an initiation of force, it's just a voluntaryist principle where people do not associate with people they do not want to associate with because of thier actions.

Another, is that they won't be able to use the roads to get where they need - they're essentially forced into paying to use them. Some people may freely consent - others won't. The free market won't solve the problem of 'initiation of force'.

That's silly. I need to use your private property, well ok, I'll let you use it for $5, how the hell is that the initiation of force.

Freely essentially means without coercion.

What? Just judge if the scenario is moral or immoral. That's all I ask of you.

That depends, who owns the road? It matters due to property rights. If the so called government owns the roads, then the police have the right to, because they are removing the man for trespass. If it is a private road, then the police have no right to, however, I have the right to, and I can delegate it to the police. Is force used? Yes, but it's retaliatory force, I'm not initiating force, the man is by trespassing.

Morality is not subject 100% to logic. Logic is a way of knowing, but it's not the only one. Also, not necessarily are any other truths we perceive subject to 100% logic (I can think of possibly one now, being math). This is the theory of knowledge.

We're trying to gain knowledge about reality. Reason which encompasses empirical evidence and logic so far, the only way to. Also, why can't logic discover morality? Is morality illogical?

You can use logic to debate subjective issues. Example: You think all girls are beautiful. Objection: I find one counter-example where you believe a girl is ugly. Conclusion: Your initial statement is incorrect. That's what I'm doing, no?

Yes, your methodology is fine.

You made an absolute claim ('initiation of force' is always wrong), and I'm giving you counter-examples, where I'm asking what YOU think of the counter-example. Are I not asking you if the examples are moral/immoral? Irregardless of how you judge them - I'm asking for YOUR opinion in the end.

I know, and I've yet to see a satisfactory counter example. You are conflating the initiation of force with (a) force in general, and (b) retaliatory force, or (c) defence of others. They are separate concepts.

Do you think Julia is beautiful? It is a statement. It is subject to the law of the excluded middle. She can either be beautiful, or not beautiful (ugly).

Wrong, you created a false dilemma. The law of the excluded middle is this: a or non-a. She can not be beautiful, yet still be attractive, the two concepts to not preclude one another.

She can't be 'okay', 'average looking', 'decent', etc. She cannot have days where she looks beautiful (with makeup), and days where she doesn't (without makeup). You see the problem? Logic keeps a lot of these details out, when in the real world, they exist, and should be considered. Otherwise, I just consider that unfair.

A decent attempt, but you misunderstand the difference between a false dilemma and the law of the excluded middle.

Law: a or non a.
She is beautiful or non-beautiful (NOT NECESSARILY UGLY).

False dilemma:

She is beautiful or ugly.
She is not beautiful.
Therefore she is ugly.

WRONG FALLACIOUS!

Is beauty subjective? Yup. I argue that morality (actually, let me use another term - what we view as good or bad, as that's really what's relevant here) is subjective too.

I don't think you've made a strong case for it, considering your morality is based more or less in emotions.

This is irrelevant to statism. I gave you the scenario - there's a man running naked on the street. The street belongs to everyone - it's public. No 'trespassing' here. The police initiate force on him and force him back into his house. Do you believe this is moral or immoral? You implied you believe it was moral in your previous post - I don't even know why I have to ask again.

You haven't given me the whole scenario.

A man is naked on my property. I can have him removed for trespass. NOT INITIAITON OF FORCE.
A man is naked on public property. Whoever 'owns public proprety' can have him removed for trespass. NOT INITIATION OF FORCE.
Since government is seen as the owner of public property, and the police servants of government, it's fine to remove him for trespass. Using force to remove him is RETALIATORY FORCE, not INITIATING FORCE.

He's not trespassing - this is a public park. Being an expectation doesn't diminish the fact that the whole scenario could either be moral or immoral. There's still initiation of force from the police - you said this in a later point.

Ok, then what the police are doing is immoral.

So, we argue that goodness or badness does not exist? Just as abstract concepts? I'm fine with that.

So, you are a nihilist? Be honest.

Do you think you will ever achieve an objective truth for what you're asking?

Sort of . I believe there is an optimal way to live your life, which exists objectively. Obviously that optimal way differs from person to person, but there will be common principles shared among everyone, for example, honesty, productivity.

Remember, engaging a debate about morality, one must presuppose that morality exists. If it exists, then it exists objectively, because it can only exist in reality.

Exactly, by definition. Definitions could be wrong. I can agree it's objective if you say, "The sky is this wavelength!" But I cannot agree that it's objective that the sky is blue - Sean, the color blind guy, think it's red, and I don't want to commit the appeal to popularity fallacy. However, I would agree with you that the sky is blue, even though, it is essentially subjective. Meaning that it's not entirely nonsensical to talk about subjective phenomena.

We are talking about the same God damn things. You fail to understand that. We are just using different symbols to represent the same god damn thing.

Reason can be false. This is me - 2000 years ago. I used my perception - the Earth looked flat. That information went to my reasoning - I assumed the Earth was flat (incorrect reasoning). Lots of people agreed with me. The few that didn't, I ignored (similar to how we ignore color blind Sean). However, reality is, the Earth is round. But, through the thought processes you mentioned, I made a mistake - and gained incorrect knowledge. I admit it was unnecessary for me to elaborate as such. I'm sure you know this!

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Reason.html

Also, you first have to prove that morality exists - not that it's an abstract concept. Abstract concepts can be subjective, however.

The fact you engaged in this debate already presupposes it's existence. I don't particularly want to get into a debate over whether morality exists. If you think it doesn't, then you are a nhilist, and everything you've said in this debate doesn't represent your true view.

No, morality is supposed to answer this question - what is good/bad? What is right/wrong? It's in its definition.

If we want to live a good life, we should live a moral life. Thus, morality is a guide as to how we should live our life. If we live an immoral life, we live a bad life. If we live a moral life, we live a good life. Historically, morality arsoe from the question: how should we live. I could be wrong, but that's my undestanding.

Empirically - am I allowed to use empirical proof now, or must I still stick with logical proof?

Empirical is fine xD.

Want to hear something funny? Isaac Newton's 3 laws - we all know them. These 3 laws are only proved empirically - there is no logical proof of them whatsoever! No math, no logic, nothing!

O, no no no. We used reason to integrate everything, that's how we gain knowledge. Disagree?

Get some empirical evidence. Try gain knowledge without logic, or anything else, just the empirical evidence. It is impossible.

So, initiating force is always wrong (you have agreed to this). So, intrinsic values exist. So, that's contradictory to something you said before (that you reject intrinsic values).

I see where you are coming from, but not necessarily. Initiating force is always wrong because it violates property rights, not because it is intrinsically wrong. They function the same way, but it's a subtle distinction.

If you initiate force on the naked man (grab him so he stops running), you will not be punished. If you call the police, you will not be punished, yet you'd be the one who is 'initiating force', as you are the one who brought the matter to the police's attention in the first place. People don't normally initiate force because they're scared to take direct responsibility. But you can if you want. And it does happen.

Punishment is based on laws, laws by their very nature are an opinion that is enforced with a gun. If you break the law (disagree with it), you will be met with force by virtue of the enforcement. This is why the police are called enforcement agencies, they enforce the laws, and they usually enforce it with guns.

Do you hear what you're saying? You're saying it's immoral for police to pull a naked man off the streets, or away from the park when he's masturbating. Come on. This is the problem when you just focus on one thing - 'initiation of force'. You have to look at the entire scenario. 'Logic' is hindering you from the details.

The problem only exists in an illogical society, namely, a statist society. It doesn't exist in my society, a logical one. That said, libertarianism is generally the most internally consistent political theory there is. What is a public park? Is it a park where no one owns but everyone can use? Is it a park where everyone owns a bit of it? Is it a park where everyone owns the whole park equally? What is it? If a man masturbates on private property, he can be forcefully removed because of trespass, forceful removement is not an initiation of force. Public parks, by their nature are illogical, so that is why you find the conclusion so unsatisfying. Again you are making statements as refutation without really making a case.

If you're saying 'initiation of force' is immoral PERIOD, you're agreeing to intrinsic values. You disagreed to intrinsic values before. You'd be contradicting yourself.

Wrong, covered above; a pistol and an AK function the same insofar that they both shoot bullets. Are they the same? No. Just because two things function the same way, does not mean they are exactly the same.

Sounds to me that you're bending your definition now. If you're going to consider lying 'aesthetically unpleasant', so it's 'kind of immoral', then go back to the scenario with the mom lying to her son.

Never said it was 'kind of immoral'. Lying to people is not a virtuous characteristic. It's just not immoral because there was no initiation of force. The correct classification is non-moral. Aesthetically unpleasant behaviour however depend more on the context SINCE there is no initiation of force involved. The morality of it also depends on your moral standard.

Also, this is about morality. If someone agreed to being run over a car, is it immoral for the person to actually run over him/her with a car? Let's not forget about euthanasia now. If someone agrees to be killed by drugs, or even by gunshot (aesthetically unpleasant), do you still consider euthanasia immoral?

Euthanasia is not immoral because there is no initiation of force. How is it immoral for a person to voluntarily interact with each other?

If the government asked Bill Gates to leave because they felt that they were being abusive to him, would he say yes? If the answer is yes, then Bill Gates can voluntarily leave. If the answer is no (it would be), then he's okay with it. And you still claim it's slavery. The example still holds.

Why should Bill Gates leave? If I asked you to leave your country, would you? Why when the government (other people) ask someone to leave they get more authority?

You face a problem as well - assuming my mindset is like yours. I said that morality is subjective. If it were objective, I'd be doing calculations. But I don't believe it is. There are no calculations, in the sense you're trying to elicit.

What problem do I face? Also, if there are no calculations, how do you determine whether something is majorly moral. Look at everything, ok, now what? You balance the pros and cons? That's calculations.

Terribly complex is not an excuse to rule it out. You know this.

Right, but Occams razor, especially when we consider you haven't got much to support your assertions.

No one's omniscient - would we ever know the 'true' morality, if it exists? We have to prove it exists too - not just an abstraction.

By engaging in a debate like this you presuppose it exists. Morality exists. It either does, or it doesn't there is no third option. If it exists, then an omniscient being would know about it.

That's not what the definition of values is. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/values.html

Really, a business dictionary for a philosophical debate? You are not using the philosophical definition of the word values, which, given this is a philosophical debate...

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Values.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(philosophy)

You ignored what I said. I said that some things in nutrition are obvious - don't eat trans fats, don't overtake a certain vitamin, etc. Obviously, don't drink potassium cyanide is one of those. Although, surely it's possible that someone could drink potassium cyanide and not die. What gives? I thought this was objective! If P, then Q. If you drink potassium cyanide, then you die. Don't forget, one counter-example negates the entire statement - the case for its objectivity.

It depends on the quantity of potasium cyanide you drink (presumably). So, that statement is false.

Look, unless you hope to change the laws of chemistry, you are wrong about nutrition. What happens to the nutrients you put into your body is decided by the laws of nature, NOT your brain. If you think overdosing on Vitamin A will make you healthy, go ahead, reality is not subject to your arbitrary whims.

That is what I mean by objectivity.

It's down to beliefs. Morality leads to values which leads to the definition of values which includes the word 'beliefs'. I would refer to ethical dilemmas again.

And no, the outcome doesn't necessarily have to happen. It could be the intent. If the hot nurse refuses to sleep with me, I'd still consider the entire scenario immoral.

Ok, a retard wanted to help people, but accidently killed them due to his own stupidity/negligence. How would that hold up.

What precisely are you using to evaluate the whole situation? What tips something from being moral, to immoral. You can't say everything, as that's just saying you evaluate the whole situation with the whole situation; a tautology. Are you using your emotions as your moral standard?

When I see a man running naked on the street, I may feel the moral obligation to tell him to go home. Am I enforcing the law?

No. You are interacting with him.

If he was homeless is adding a new element into the scenario. There are a pool of examples. Some of these examples are corroborative to your initial, absolute statement. Some are counter-examples. All I need is one counter-example to prove your statement wrong. I found one. You found an example that corroborates your statement. Who cares? The counter-example still exists.

What? You haven't gotten close to showing how the naked man running around is a counter-example to the initiation of force. You have little understanding over the difference between initiation and retaliatory force, also property rights and trespass.

That's off the point. Do you agree it's morally unacceptable?

I don't think people should be doing that

Why?

Ethical dilemmas are 'problems' with morality when we don't know what to do. They result because equally large groups of people have opposing opinions. The answer to why people have a difference of opinion is put down to how they've been socialized in society.

I could argue against P3. Knowledge is not only obtainable by reason - it could be obtainable by perception, language, and, yes, even emotion. This is the theory of knowledge. More on that.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Reason.html

For the sky, we can - it's a certain wavelength. Now, explain to me how we can determine something is moral/immoral.

We can determine whether something is immoral by whether or not the initiation of force involved. What of actions that are intuitively immoral but no initiation of force is involved. Well, they would be legal for one. For moral? I'm not entirely sure. I've never faced a problem over how I should live my life. I do contest however that we should not initiate force.

Am I denying the wavelength exists? This is COMPLETELY off the point. We're focusing on this sentence - 'the sky is blue'. Not 'the sky is this wavelength'. We say this is objective (the sky is blue), but it's not, because the word blue, which you agree is an abstraction, is in it. Are you not agreeing that an abstraction means that it's being perceived? Didn't we say that the way the brain perceives information could be subjective?

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Definitions.html

The heater is innately machinery with the function of outputting heat. But now, when the heater actually outputs heat, are our definitions of that heat not subjective? "It's too hot!" "It's too cold!"

Our perception of what is heat is subjective i'd think. The actual heat is objective though. It depends on our biological make up, pain threshold, and so on. Some people have better homeostatic mechanisms than others. Some people have incredibly efficient vasodilation, which cools them off better. The stimuli each person is subjected to is the same, but the interpretation of it is (a) determined by biological factors (b) determined by socialisation (c) is all integrated in the brain and out comes perception. Inputs are the same, outputs are different because everyone is different.

Now, you're given a wavelength. "It's blue!" "It's red!" In any case, ignore red. You didn't address something I said - did it occur to you that even for normal people, we could each perceive this wavelength of blue as a different shade of blue? Even if the differences are minimal, they exist. Differences mean it's not objective, though. If I was able to take a picture of what I was seeing through my brain, open it with Adobe Photoshop, and attempt to analyze what shade of blue I was seeing, it could be different than what another person sees.

Yes, but we are referring to the same phenomenon.

So, maybe the wavelength corresponds to a certain correct shade of blue. But how can we ever determine what this correct shade is?

We determine the wavelength?

The better question is if I agree that coercion is always wrong.

The logical inference of someone disagreeing is that they agree that putting guns to peoples head can be morally right and forcing them to do what you want is sometimes morally acceptable.

Why would you complain if there's tangible agreement? If I had terms and conditions, and you agreed to them, no matter what you're circumstance, I expect you to follow them. It's very simple. You're going to tell me 'it was my only option, I was forced'. Well, I don't think a true free market would prevent this either. Go above to infrastructure.

You are just missing the point entirely. Coercion is behind it all. An anarcho-capitalist would prevent this, there would be no state institutionalised coercion. You already agreed with my definition of government. There would be no legal right to initiate force, so any initiation of force will be punished.

Why can some people initiate force and not others?

You force yourself into that maze. You want to sell products in America - a land that was acquired by the founding fathers.

Who owns the house, me, or the government?

Well guess what? These founding fathers made conditions for America. If you accept them, don't complain.

I didn't accept them, there was no contract, they were forced onto me.

If you don't, don't make a business.

It's my natural right to sell the products of my labour.

These are YOUR needs. You're not forced into anything unless you force yourself. What's your solution? We've discussed this - you can freely leave.

Why should I leave. If bandits ransack your town and function like a government, is it fair to say you should just leave? No.

If people initially objected, there'd be no businesses, and surely a reform in the law would occur.

People want to start their own businesses, but they are forced to accept x y and z by the government. You don't dispute this.

But they didn't. You want to rewrite history all for yourself. It's unfair for you to be the only business that's not paying taxes, where the other ones are obliged to because they have already agreed.

Unfair for me to trade?

That's not what I meant. When I say 'given you disagree with porn', it means 'assume you disagree with porn'. Here's something better - replace porn with something you disagree with. Replace it with many things. If you cannot find one thing that works for you, I guess we don't agree. But then read what I said above about the hasty generalization.

Replace porn with taxation.

So in a free market, there are no patents? If I come up with an idea, everyone else is allowed to sell my idea? Excuse me if I didn't understand. I haven't read the eBook you asked for me to read. I'll try to.

Patents mean you own an idea. That's just ridiculous. In a free market, when you get an idea, you'd likely guard it and try to milk it for money. Eventually, people will find out about the idea, and competition will reduce prices. Innovators will keep thinking of new ideas. Many explosions in innovation have occurred without patents, and patents were initially invented to protect and encourage innovation. It's unnecessary. If you come up with an idea, why would you tell others? You wouldn't, you'd probably want to sell it, and you'd do it by being an entrepreneur.

You told me to refrain from empirical proof and provide logical proof. Empirical evidence is not logical proof of the theory of evolution.

Then my bad, use logical or empirical or whatever proof you want.

You don't - hence why tolls would be needed. Something I don't want. Against my will! Don't force me to pay! After all, just driving on a bridge doesn't mean I agree with being charged tolls. Would you not agree - it's similar to something you said before. Don't say 'voluntarily' - many people NEED to drive. I'd be essentially forced to pay.

Wrong, you misunderstand. Private property, you have no right to be on someone elses's private property. Repeat after me: You do not have the right to be on someone else's private property without their freely given (uncoerced) consent. Please, remember that. You don't have the right to drive on someone else's bridge, don't fucking drive on the bridge if you don't want to pay a toll.

And no, you got it wrong with the gated community! Residents often pay for gated communities - and this can be very secretive too (electric bill, water bill, or sometimes, you're just directly required). Read: http://www.ehow.com/list_5905753_pros-cons-gated-communities.html

Disadvantges, it costs more... It's hard for people to get in... Come on.

Also, there are normally homeowner associations in such communities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

Well if you voluntarily decided to live in such a community, don't complain about the rules and regulations.

The people in a gated community may pay because they're rich - plus they want the other benefits associated with being in said gated community (some are essentially even forced to, if they're celebrities).

Celebrities are forced to because they want privacy. No one is initiating force on them, remember this. It's just a competition between their wants.

But in regular society, you will have everyone (including frugal people from the middle class, and the poor) who may NOT want to pay. Don't forget, when you join a gated community, you agree to paying.

You don't have a right to exist in a gated community, it's just an option, one that I'd prefer to live in, and one that would likely arise in an anarchist society. There would be competing social structures. If you demand a community with gun control, then you can choose one that has gun control. There's nothing wrong with this, as every person in the community signed a control that they would not have guns. The same for drugs, prostitution and that apply.

You asked for logical proof of the social contract. But anyways, back to taxation.

I've given empirical evidence of agreeing to pay taxes. I've given many counter-examples to absolute claims that imply taxation is immoral (such as the fact that moral deeds cannot be achieved through immoral means). Those claims were essentially the premise of your argument - and they're absolute. We know that even if one counter-example exists, the absolute claim is incorrect, and the entire argument must either be re-formulated, or dropped.

You have not, it's not my freely given consent. When will you not realize that you are forced to pay taxes. It's a fucking law, you must pay taxes. If you don't you will be thrown in jail. So, everyone puts it in their contract because they are forced to, it's not their freely given consent. The same applies to you, you sign it because there is coercion involved. You simply fail to understand this.

So why do you restrict me from using empirical proof when you can use it for the theory of evolution to prove its validity?

Use empirical proof then, and only empirical proof. Do not use any logic, or anything else when proving the theory of evolution: you can't. You must use reason, otherwise you could not comprehend the empirical evidence.

Is logic the only way of knowing?

Reason is, in my opinion. Refer to my link to what Reason is.

Yup, easy! First, the theory of knowledge says there are 4 ways of knowing: perception, reason, emotion, and language. It's not necessary that all are mutually exclusive - they can all work together. I would never argue that morality is pure emotion - I said it deals with emotions, and of course, language and perception are included. It also deals with reasoning. But emotion is in there - it's hard to make 'proof' for morality because of this.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html
Actually, read that thing on reason as well (above somewhere).

Also, I want to gain knowledge about reality. Tell me how I can use emotions to find out about evolution? I can't. Tell me how I can use emotions to find out about morality (serious question).

Now, here's an example. There exists a baby. We know a baby has very low reasoning (you would argue they're not rational - I believe you said this before), and very low language, so we're essentially isolating perception and emotion (babies don't lack emotion - we know this). The baby touches a very hot stove - perception. The baby feels pain, and begins to feel sad, and cries (emotion).

Agree (see next for caveat).

The baby learns that the stove is hot (objective truth), and learns to never touch the hot stove again.

The baby knows the stove ilicits a feeling a pain, it is only told that this pain is cold 'hot', would you agree?

Perhaps reasoning was vaguely used in the last step. Fact of the matter is that emotion is included as a way of knowing (a vital one, in this case), and emotion paves the way for subjectivity.

They are a way of knowing they are limited. You cannot use emotions to find out about gravity for example, it simply doesn't work, in fact, I don't think emotions play a part in finding out about gravity, other than perhaps motivating you to find out.

There is one key thing I'd like to say though. The baby is merely associating pain with the hot stove; the association is strong due to one-trial learning. The baby is not actually discovering the stove is hot (it doesn't know what hot is). The baby is only discovering that touching the stove causes pain, and since the baby doesn't like pain, it won't touch the stove again.

We need to ask ourselves. What causes emotions. Then we need to ask ourselves, how can they be used to gain knowledge about the world. You can agree that they can gain knowledge, but to what extent?

I urge you to read this: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Emotions.html

Let's get to the gist here - I asked for logical proof that self defense is right. With logical proof, your conclusion will be absolute. Do you believe such a logical proof exists? If yes, then that means this scenario is morally right as well:

I punch someone in the face. He uses self defense, and punches me back. I use self defense again, and stab him with a knife. He uses self defense again, and hits me in the face with brass knuckles. I use self-defense, and shoot him. In the end, we were both right! Self defense is ALWAYS right, DESPITE initiation of force being in the scenario.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Retaliatory force. You need to ask yourself. Who started the fight? You don't understand the difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force. It is a contradiction to both initiate force and defend yourself. The person who first initiated force is in the moral wrong. Also, let's be serious your scenario is morphed, it won't exist in reality... No one is going to put brass knuckles on after being stabbed, and so on.

You see - this is the problem with logical proof. It doesn't focus on the details. You make a judgement for everything, when we know in real life, cases can be really specific. This isn't math. With logic, as I said, we ignore the details, which I believe is inappropriate when we deal with morality.

You misunderstand logic, valid and sound argument means conclusion is always right. You accept this, yet you still say details details details.

You said earlier you wanted logical proof, not empirical proof?

I thought it would be hard to find empirical proof that the social contract existed, you can try if you want though.

"It all comes back to the social contract, it's primary purpose was to legitimise the governments initiation of force on its citizens. You need to prove that (by proof, I mean logical proof, not empirical proof)."

Fine, use empirical evidence to prove the existence of something you agree doesn't exist.

Would you argue that debates against evolution are similar to debates for ethical dilemmas? I think not. 'Smart', 'not delusional' people may share the exact opposite view that you do for an ethical dilemma.

On the presupposition morality exists, they are the same... It's like saying evolution is subjective because it affects organisms differently, yea, but the principle is reproductive success...

I took this part out. I reedited something in:

"Also, you're claiming that empirical evidence is insufficient. We're missing something though - I'm not using empirical evidence to make a case. I'm using them as COUNTER-EXAMPLES to claims you have made. Absolute claims (without logical proof, mind you). If I'm not mistaken, in logic, isn't this more than enough for me to prove what you said is wrong? Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample"

I don't think you've really made a satisfactory counter example.

You're making the claim here - moral deeds cannot be achieved through immoral means (or 'initiation of force' is always wrong). I'm providing counter-examples to that. Irregardless of how I determine if the scenario is moral/immoral, I'm asking for YOUR opinion. You just justify with a different reason why it's moral. In the end, the counter-example is there. It cannot exist if your original premise is absolutely true, yet it does. What does that mean?

The claim that we need to initiate force to stop the initiation of force is a self-contradiciton. That's really, all I was trying to hint to initially.

Can you logically prove crime will be lower? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just really interested.

I think my reasoning was pretty consistent, you're welcome to go over it.

Crime is a violation of laws.
If there are no laws.
There is no crime.

Obviously I'm being a smart arse, but, a lot of 'criminals' I think are unjustly labelled criminals. Never mind the empirical evidence support the labelling theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory), that labelling people criminals will actually encourage them to act like criminals as they follow the 'deviant career' pathway.

Wait! You're agreeing to taxes. I thought taxation was theft. Why do you agree to it here?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, not a minarchist. I don't agree to taxation. Remember, I said hierarchy, and anarcho-capitalist was first. Obviously, the lesser of two evils, big government, high taxes, and small government, low taxes, I'd take the latter.

I didn't copy and paste all of this for the sake of space. Now, I didn't say courts wouldn't exist. I simply asked for you to provide me a method in which they'd get paid. Who would pay the judge? You need to qualify to be a judge - you can't just 'volunteer'.

True, universities would still exist, and judges would be paid a wage by the owner of the business. Judges would still exist remember if the state suddenly vanished, so it's likely they would be hired first, correct?

I don't think private enterprises would make courts - where's the profit to be made? Businesses look for demand - they also look for profit. Unless they hire lawyers and whatnot - things people already pay for in court. Then I can see it working.

Sure they will, the profit to be made is hearing the cases for breaches in contract. It doesn't take much to run a court. A judge, someone keeping records, some security.

Yup, I agree with the fact that it would be used as an attraction. But in the scenario above (gated community), those parks are essentially being funded.

They could be funded by the people because they want them, or the entreupreneur could fund them entirely himself to make the place (a) more attractive, increasing the value of the community, or (b) more enticing to the initial investors. It's like a mall. They make it spanking new beforehand, and during it's existence, they usually upgrade it. Malls that aren't upgraded tend to be of poor quality. In a free market, inefficient and poor quality businesses tend to go bankrupt.

Okay, but this is off the point - who will pay for this prison, or this 'service' of prison you're imagining?

It will be a business. The DRO could pay the business x for doing it. It perhaps could be a charity that wants to rehabilitate people. These are possibilities I'd say.

Yeah but, it's free now. There's an important thing we're missing - firemen go to their jobs everyday. They go through rigorous training. They get paid a salary - not based on every house they put off. This salary is funded through taxes. Now, let's say houses catching fire isn't as common as we think it is - especially in this new society, where people are more educated. This would mean that for firemen, there is a vertical market. The private enterprise would have to charge significantly higher to pay the firemen an appropriate salary, or else the firemen will quit, and work as perhaps a waiter - where they wouldn't risk their lives, and they would make more money.

DROs. You would be covered for fire insurance, so if there is a fire, then it would be paid, so money is not an issue, even if it costs $10,000 for a fire call, the DROs will pay it, it will just affect your insurance premiums which is dependent on your credit ratings which is affected by your actions in everyday life.

This means the 'fireman business' would fail, because there isn't a lot of demand. So, we can lose an important service in the society. This isn't as simple as 'yes, we'll price things down where the consumer will buy for sure'.

Not really, for the reasons mentioned above. There will always be demand where there is supply, it's just a question of where the price is. Presumably, people will take out fire insurance, it's not a hard thing to ask, people take out life insurance for their family when they die!

Fact is, profit has to be made. Tolls will exist everywhere. Do you really want that?

No, you see, look at all the malls. They are all (or most at least) privately owned. How many charge upon entry. What about toilets? Do you have to pay to use them. No, yes, entreupreneurs want to make a profit, but if building a road increases the asset price of the land around you, then they won't care about putting a toll on, because a toll would potentially decrease the price of the land around you.

The tolls are covered in the book. There is just little incentive to put tolls on every single road. Look at gated communities, are there tolls? No. Look at private businesses, are there tolls for going under cover during a rain? No. Will there be slightly more tolls? Maybe, but all in all, I hardly think it's a problem. Even if it were, you already pay tolls through taxes.

If anything, I think a true free market would only get rid of the middle class, and lead to a sharp contrast between the rich and poor. I'm only speaking based on personal experience, but it's something to think about.

There is a problem here. Loosely, there are two types of goods: consumer goods, and capital goods. Capital goods are your infrastructure, they are a means of produciton; they produce other goods. Consumers goods, are stuff like clothes, they are enjoyed by the individuals that use them. What do rich people mostly own? Not 50 billion dollars worth of clothes. They usually own capital goods, and higher quality consumer goods. A man may have a billion dollars, but 950 million of it might be in shares... How does he derive happiness from that? When we take that into consideration, the gap between rich and poor narrows.

It's merely a difference between consumers goods (capital goods benefit all, good infrastructure has flow on effects for all in society). Take consumer goods: cars. You have shit cars, you have lamborghinis. Rich people own shit cars, poor people own bad cars, the middle class own decent cars. What's the difference? (Remember, all the prices of cars will be lower due to deregulation and a free market, so more people will be able to afford better cars, this includes the lower class). The difference really between a lambo and a bad car is perhaps the leather, the brand, the functions of the car, but really it gets you from point a to b. The same can be said for clothes. It may be a bit more silky, a better brand, but really, come on...

To address the issue at hand though, the poor will get richer, people in America are already falling out of the middle class. In a free market everyone can sell their labour, it's a system in society where everyone advocates: a system where the lowest member in society can hope to become the highest. There are no barriers. You are free to let your mind work, and your body work. There are many stories were people that come from x country to y country with nothing are suddenly in the upper class. They let their mind and body work. This is not Marxism, he was incorrect, the bourgeoisie do not want to enslave the proletariat, we want them to do well. There is a harmony of interests involved here, a rising tide lifts all boats, a productive labour force produces more goods, and increases the standard of living. An educated society typically results in less crime. A society that maximises the ability to create wealth is good for all because wealth by it's nature is fundamentally held in capital goods.

The lower, middle, upper class, they are all just abstractions. What exists are people, and what exists are goods. A free market means cheaper goods. A free market means higher wages due to competition and the bidding up of wages to attract the highest quality of labour. A free market gives the opportunity of all to obtain more goods. It is a system which allows the greatest equality of opportunity. It is not a system where equality of outcome will exist. There will be inequalities between the distribution of wealth, but that doesn't mean people won't be happy; everything will be cheaper and of higher quality, the purchasing power of people will increase.

There are two types of poor people involved here: Poor people as a result of their own actions. Poor people as a result of forces out of their control. You are either poor because of your actions or non-actions. If you are poor because of your actions, it means you made bad decisions. Should you be punished, well sure, you made a bad choice to invest in x, your punishment was losing. But now you're poor. You are not entitled to anything, nature owes you nothing, you owe it to yourself. But, there will still be people willing to help you, I for one would, I'm sure others would as well. If you are poor as a result of your non-actions, then people will definitely be inclined to help you. Families, who are already struggling, still look after the mentally of physically incapacitated people. It's just the benevolence in human nature.

I'll try to get to the book. I'm interested about learning more of this 'true free market' you speak of.

The book is more about how an anarcho-capitalist society would work. By nature of being anarcho-capitalist though, it is a true free market providing those services without any government existing.

 

[Anet390]

Defining Uthanasia: Uthanasia or physician-assisted suicide refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

Contention 1: Based off the definition of Uthanasia, you must understand that if we do this for our animals that we love so very much why not do it for our loved ones who are suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses.

Contention 2: On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires the Oregon Health Authority to collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in the Act, and publish an annual statistical report. The decision is closely analyzed BEFORE administering the drug so they take into account the stresses and everything else before deciding whether or not they should give it to you.

Contention 3: I would also like to point that Euthanasia is also a whole lot cheaper than actually paying for medicine and health insurance only to die in the end.

Conclusion: As long as we examine to patients state to make sure that the suffering is severe, keeping the person alive does more good than bad. If the person has the right to life, they should have the right to death as well (In certain circumstances).

(Please Note: This Post was supposed to be VERY brief. If you would like me to go into more detail about any specific statement or would like me to create a more lengthy case, please let me know. If you are confused, then I am not exaplaining my opinions clearly.)

 

[malakadang]

Defining Uthanasia: Uthanasia or physician-assisted suicide refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

I think you should add that the person who is in pain voluntarily asks to end their life.

Contention 1: Based off the definition of Uthanasia, you must understand that if we do this for our animals that we love so very much why not do it for our loved ones who are suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses.

While I do agree, the common response is because animals are not humans. Your contention is essentially if we do it to x, why not to y.

Contention 2: On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires the Oregon Health Authority to collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in the Act, and publish an annual statistical report. The decision is closely analyzed BEFORE administering the drug so they take into account the stresses and everything else before deciding whether or not they should give it to you.

While I agree, does this make it morally acceptable? Your contention is because the law says x, therefore x is morally acceptable. A conflation of the law and morality.

Contention 3: I would also like to point that Euthanasia is also a whole lot cheaper than actually paying for medicine and health insurance only to die in the end.

Perhaps, but this implies that we should do things based on the cost. This means that the morality of an action has something to do with the economic cost, something many people vehemently oppose.

(Please Note: This Post was supposed to be VERY brief. If you would like me to go into more detail about any specific statement or would like me to create a more lengthy case, please let me know. If you are confused, then I am not exaplaining my opinions clearly.)

I'm not disagreeing with your stance btw, just debating.

 

[Anet390]

I think you should add that the person who is in pain voluntarily asks to end their life.

Well the title of this thread says "Read whole post before responding" , and in the OP it state the FULL meaning of Euthanasia. I was just providing a shortened example due to time.

While I do agree, the common response is because animals are not humans. Your contention is essentially if we do it to x, why not to y.

This is not supposed to be the only reason we should allow Euthanasia. And I would agree with anybody stating that this is a very small reason, but it is indeed a reason and adds to the other more meaningful ones.

While I agree, does this make it morally acceptable? Your contention is because the law says x, therefore x is morally acceptable. A conflation of the law and morality.

I think you missed the point of this statement. The law is not what I feel is important. The law states that "The decision is closely analyzed BEFORE administering the drug so they take into account the stresses and everything else before deciding whether or not they should give it to you." So the purpose of me posting this law as a contention is that nobody can assume that any person can use Euthanasia, only those who have a legit reason to have their life ended (decided by doctors as well as the families)

Perhaps, but this implies that we should do things based on the cost. This means that the morality of an action has something to do with the economic cost, something many people vehemently oppose.

No. The point of adding this is stating that it is morally unright to make a family pay large sum of money for their loved one to suffer. If the loved one wants to use Euthanasia, why FORCE these families to keep paying all this money. Especially if this money is making their loved one suffer more. They are essentially paying for pain.

I'm not disagreeing with your stance btw, just debating.

This statement applies to my post as well. I am glad there is someone in the SFA section who has manners as well as debating talent. I will be awaiting your response.

Thanks,
Anet390/Andrew