Minimum Wage Rise Will Cause The Moon To Fall From The Sky

[Injin]

So, if some people live where there is a rule that allows them to murder............ murder is moral as the rules against it do not apply to all people ?

Or if some people live where contracts are not considered moral......... contracts are not moral as the rules for them do not apply to all people ?

Lets say I live somewhere that a signature on a contract does not make it binding. Perhaps there you need a signature AND a fingerprint.

Does that mean, in this area, where we have agreed that a signature is all it takes to secure a contract..........that attempts to enforce that contract are immoral ?

I understand that in your anarchist utopia you wish to display your displeasure at acts of, say, murder by "shunning" people. Or at least you have said so before.

If there are some people who consider shunning immoral.......... does that make all your anarchist shunners immoral ?

Yours,

TGP

No, a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

No exceptions.

You can have actions which are not moral but which are also not immoral - they are neutral, morally speaking.

[TGP]

STOP MISCONSTRUING THINGS! At no point have I said that I should not pay for entering the carpark. I have said that if I enter the carpark and choose to pay that I do so voluntarily or I leave. All I did in the previous post was point out that the carpark owners have the right to sub-licence the security. My choice remains the same. Your analogy was wrong as I pointed out

In what way was it wrong ?

You started (I think you said this as well as Injin) that the government could not have an implicit contract. In any case Injin said it.

Thats what this analogy was set up about.

Then we got onto the "voluntary" nature of that contract. I think I am increasingly getting the upper hand on that one. You are now accepting that it is voluntary, even if you are NOT accepting the govt's "standing" to levy it (originally, you refused to accept their standing AND said it was not voluntary). I think you are accepting it's voluntary nature now ONLY on the basis that they could have standing. If they don;t have standing THAT is the problem, not that they DO have standing.......but it's not voluntary.

I just want to establish both before we move on.

If you wish to move on.........great..........

Lets move on to "standing".

You consider the car company has a right to levy a fee. This is because (from previous statements) you accept that they own that land and so have a right to levy fees on that land on that basis. You consider ownership a legitimate "standing" on which to levy fees (as does the law).

My question.......... if you wish to move on........... is how do you know that the car company "owns" that land ? How do you establish THEIR "standing" which you accept ?

We'll try to use that as our analogy to examine the governments "standing" to levy fee's too. (although at some point I may have to think up a new analogy as we're now stretching this one way outside the bounds of what it is suitable for).

So your moral framework is "what the majority says"?

Is that what it says ? No. I did make it as simple as a possibly could. There is no word in there that doesn't need to be in there. It cannot be adequately shortened to "what the majority says". If it could, I would have typed that.

I know where you WANT to go with this. I'm not going to let you go there. This argument is sophisticated enough to prevent that, and not any more complex than it has to be.

Look, you consider murder of humans immoral, right ?

You consider eating meat moral (I assume, I may be wrong) ?

Yet.........perhaps in the future......... people consider eating meat immoral for the same reasons they consider killing humans immoral.

When I ask you "Is eating meat moral" and you say yes we are talking about the current state of affairs (including the rules for logic and coherency). If you said "eating meat is moral" I would not quibble, under our current logical system (which is coherent) it IS moral.

We cannot predict whether it will be immoral in the future EXCEPT where we can point to a logic/coherency problem today that we can see may well change the minds of people in the future.

Do you see ?

It was on this basis............ people agree it is moral today. They do so on a set of principles. Those principles are logical and coherent. That I say taxes are moral. That can only go for today, not for tommorrow.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

No, a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

No exceptions.

You can have actions which are not moral but which are also not immoral - they are neutral, morally speaking.

Is killing another human being moral ?

Is killing an animal moral ?

Is taking without their permission an item owned by another human being moral ?

Is saving the life of another human being moral ?

Is slavery (owning another human being as property) moral ?

Like you say above.......... you have three choices, moral, immoral and neutral........... and each rule must be applied with no exceptions.

I don;t think your system is sophisticated enough to accurately determine morality, frankly.

You tell me.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 29, 2010 by TGP

[Injin]

Is killing another human being moral ?

Nope. breaks morality because it's not a rule for all humans - if it was we'd be a pile of rotting skulls and ravens would rule the earth.

Is killing an animal moral ?

Neutral, afaik.

Is taking without their permission an item owned by another human being moral ?

Nope, because it breaks it's own premise - you are saying that property is a breakable concept, in order to gain property. Doesnt work as a moral.

Is saving the life of another human being moral ?

Nope. It's neutral.

Is slavery (owning another human being as property) moral ?

Immoral. Not a rule you can apply to all humans.

Like you say above.......... you have three choices, moral, immoral and neutral........... and each rule must be applied with no exceptions.

I don;t think your system is sophisticated enough to accurately determine morality, frankly.

You tell me.

Yours,

TGP

Easy to do.

[bogbrush]

I thought I'd seen some big examples of persistence of mis-thinking but TGP has raised the bar to unprecedented levels.

A few pages ago (I really don't have the energy to trawl through your interminable posts) you said that I bought into the contract to pay for nuclear weapons because I bought a house off another guy. What next? I agreed to Inheritance Tax because I bought some crisps on the way home?

I am rarely lost for words, but this is one of those moments.

Edited March 29, 2010 by bogbrush

[pootle]

In what way was it wrong ?

You started (I think you said this as well as Injin) that the government could not have an implicit contract. In any case Injin said it.

Thats what this analogy was set up about.

Then we got onto the "voluntary" nature of that contract. I think I am increasingly getting the upper hand on that one. You are now accepting that it is voluntary, even if you are NOT accepting the govt's "standing" to levy it (originally, you refused to accept their standing AND said it was not voluntary). I think you are accepting it's voluntary nature now ONLY on the basis that they could have standing. If they don;t have standing THAT is the problem, not that they DO have standing.......but it's not voluntary.

I just want to establish both before we move on.

If you wish to move on.........great..........

Lets move on to "standing".

You consider the car company has a right to levy a fee. This is because (from previous statements) you accept that they own that land and so have a right to levy fees on that land on that basis. You consider ownership a legitimate "standing" on which to levy fees (as does the law).

My question.......... if you wish to move on........... is how do you know that the car company "owns" that land ? How do you establish THEIR "standing" which you accept ?

We'll try to use that as our analogy to examine the governments "standing" to levy fee's too. (although at some point I may have to think up a new analogy as we're now stretching this one way outside the bounds of what it is suitable for).

OK, let me be clear for you:

If I have something I wish to exchange for something else and the other party wishes to reciprocate the exchange then it is voluntary. If I wish to park in a carpark and to pay for it and the carpark owner is happy for me to park there then it is voluntary. If you read over my posts you will find that I am consistent in this and also in the alternative - that if I do not wish to pay then I park elsewhere.

You tried to force fit the analogy until it showed that I had a implicit contract with the government. I refuted this by saying that the equivalent of the parking example would be a random security company coming along and starting to charge. Your analogy is still wrong. I am still incapable of forming an enforecable implicit contract under coercion ... in other words no implicit contract exists.

You then change your tack moving from implicit contract to standing and asking how I know if the parking company own the land? Well clearly the government is going to be spending some of it's hard earned cash by creating a DNA database of everyone, then biochipping property with it's owners details and mandating that everyone buys a hand-held reader and all transactions are verified for legitimate ownership before authorisation at which point the STAT (safe transaction added tax) is added.

Is that what it says ? No. I did make it as simple as a possibly could. There is no word in there that doesn't need to be in there. It cannot be adequately shortened to "what the majority says". If it could, I would have typed that.

I know where you WANT to go with this. I'm not going to let you go there. This argument is sophisticated enough to prevent that, and not any more complex than it has to be.

Look, you consider murder of humans immoral, right ?

You consider eating meat moral (I assume, I may be wrong) ?

Yet.........perhaps in the future......... people consider eating meat immoral for the same reasons they consider killing humans immoral.

When I ask you "Is eating meat moral" and you say yes we are talking about the current state of affairs (including the rules for logic and coherency). If you said "eating meat is moral" I would not quibble, under our current logical system (which is coherent) it IS moral.

We cannot predict whether it will be immoral in the future EXCEPT where we can point to a logic/coherency problem today that we can see may well change the minds of people in the future.

Do you see ?

It was on this basis............ people agree it is moral today. They do so on a set of principles. Those principles are logical and coherent. That I say taxes are moral. That can only go for today, not for tommorrow.

Yours,

TGP

You know my mind? Why bother posting here then? I could as easily have asked if your moral principle was might-is-right. Why shouldn't I ask what moral principles you are starting with?

So let me ask you again - what are your moral principles? Or, if you prefer we can skip that and agree that your reply to my clarification question does indeed suggest that your moral system is based on "what the majority says" (and I believe the defence you mounted does indeed suggest this). Your choice! (No coercion here )

Edited March 29, 2010 by pootle

[bogbrush]

pootle, let it go, you'll be here all week. The guy just can't overcome his awe of authority.

[pootle]

pootle, let it go, you'll be here all week. The guy just can't overcome his awe of authority.

That's probably the most sensible statement posted on this thread

[TGP]

OK, let me be clear for you:

If I have something I wish to exchange for something else and the other party wishes to reciprocate the exchange then it is voluntary. If I wish to park in a carpark and to pay for it and the carpark owner is happy for me to park there then it is voluntary. If you read over my posts you will find that I am consistent in this and also in the alternative - that if I do not wish to pay then I park elsewhere.

You are consistent in that. I just made the mistake of assuming when you said "this is not voluntary" you meant "this is not voluntary" NOT "the government has no right to levy this charge".

[qupte]

You tried to force fit the analogy until it showed that I had a implicit contract with the government. I refuted this by saying that the equivalent of the parking example would be a random security company coming along and starting to charge. Your analogy is still wrong. I am still incapable of forming an enforecable implicit contract under coercion ... in other words no implicit contract exists.

Yes, but it exists because the "random security company" has no basis on which to levy a charge. Not because you had been coerced into accepting a charge....... but becuse the charge was illegitimately levied.

Look, if thats what you are saying, fine. Lets go on to discussing whether the charge is legitimate...... whether the government has "the right to levy the charge" through some mechanism you accept (even if you do not realise it yet) in the same way the car park company has a "right to levy the charge" through ownership, which you do accept.

You then change your tack moving from implicit contract to standing and asking how I know if the parking company own the land?

No, that isn't changing tack. I assumed you were quibbling about it being "voluntary" because you kept saying "it is not voluntary".

After an exhaustive discussion around that concept I now realise you were trying to say "the government does not have standing/a right/whatever it is you need in order to levy a charge legitimately".

Now. Because I this is an argument my objecdtive is to get you to agrtee that "By my own logic, the governments charge is legitimate". I can "declare victory" no other way. I can't force you to agree. I can only dissect your logic in a way you accept......... and show how that logic makes the government charge is legitimate....... if you accept both bits, then you can't deny the govt. charge is legitimate. (although, again, thats a big if).

As I have no idea what logic you are using.............My only starting point is that you DO consider a fee levied by the owner of something legitimate. Thats the only thing you have declared legitimate so far (although you can declare more if you wish).

SO........... I wanted to discover some of the logic behind that decision.......... I want you to explain HOW you know, in general, whether somebody owns something.

I suspect (but cannot be sure) I can use that logic to demonstrate the government is also legitimately levying a charge.

So I asked............ How do you know that the car park company is the owner of that car park ? Not in the sense of "when you drive in that day" because, of course, that may be impossible. Just in the sense of "How given unlimited time and money could you work that out" ? How, ultimately, is their ownership proven to your satisfaction?

Well clearly the government is going to be spending some of it's hard earned cash by creating a DNA database of everyone, then biochipping property with it's owners details and mandating that everyone buys a hand-held reader and all transactions are verified for legitimate ownership before authorisation at which point the STAT (safe transaction added tax) is added.

Yes, well.......... jokes aside.......... how do you do it ?

I don;t want to assume you do it one way...............argue on that basis........... and find I have mistakenly assumed wrong. So I just want a simple explanation of how you could know that in an ideal-ish situation.

Besides........ wouldn't your proposed system have a bit of a problem with twins ? ;->

I know where you want to go with this

You know my mind? Why bother posting here then? I could as easily have asked if your moral principle was might-is-right. Why shouldn't I ask what moral principles you are starting with?

There is no reason you shouldn't ask. However, I suspected I knew very well why you wanted to shorten my reply from, well, my reply to your four word synopsis of it. You'd tipped your hand a few posts earlier by talking about slavery and other issues that were considered moral by the majority at that time. I suspected you wanted to explore that point further.

So let me ask you again - what are your moral principles?

This is a different question. You asked "How do you say this is moral ?" that is a different question from my moral principles.

Perhaps I am a vegetarian. I can say eating meat is against my moral principles, but still agree that it's moral in general.

I wouldn;t do it (if I was vegetarian) but I wouldn;t consider others immoral for doing it.

And (unlike Injin) my moral principles are really rather complex and I'm not sure I could do it justice quickly and easily.

I can say some of the important base principles can be summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number" and the concept of "minority rights" and also that rights apply to "sentient beings". It also includes the concept that "you should have absolute control over your own body, and it is only societies business to interfere with that WHEN my rights over my own body conflict with someone elses rights over their own body".

But where these principles collide.......... one often has to triump over another (at least partially)......... and it is very difficult to explore that "moral space" fully in a single post.

Why don't you ask some example questions (ones designed to probe where one or more of the above collide would be most fruitful) and I'll take a stab at an answer.

Or, if you prefer we can skip that and agree that your reply to my clarification question does indeed suggest that your moral system is based on "what the majority says" (and I believe the defence you mounted does indeed suggest this). Your choice! (No coercion here )

No, it really is more complex than that.

In particular.......... that collides (in my morals, if not general morals) with "you should have absolute control over your own body, and it is only societies business to interfere with that WHEN my rights over my own body conflict with someone elses rights over their own body".

In some circumstances the majority has a right to tell me what to do......... because my right over my own body collides with someone elses......... my "right to do what I please" collides with someone elses right to "be free from attack on their own body" and that takes balancing. The majority balances that, with deference given to minority rights. So they say "you may not assault someone" and I comply. But if they said "White people have a right to do what they will to black people" that might trigger a defence on the basis of minority rights, in a way the more general "People in fear of an imminent attack have a right to fend off that attack" does not.

It really is very complex. I'm not going to pretend (like Injin) that it isn't.

If you hang around a minute you'll see (with reference to injin) how simple systems don't hold up.

A few pages ago (I really don't have the energy to trawl through your interminable posts) you said that I bought into the contract to pay for nuclear weapons because I bought a house off another guy. What next? I agreed to Inheritance Tax because I bought some crisps on the way home?

Well, I said you enterred a contract to pay a fee.......... and that fee went in part to nuclear weapons, even though you didn't specifically request it be spent on nuclear weapons or require that service (although you did receive that service).

Much as you may have paid a fee for a car parking space.......... and that fee went in part to providing security cameras........ even though you didn't specifically request for it to be spent on security cameras (although you did receive that service).

And, no, you did not agree to inheritance tax because you bought some crisps.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

pootle, let it go, you'll be here all week. The guy just can't overcome his awe of authority.

It's a bit rich to criticise my arguments without reading them, you DID just admit not reading them, right ?

Isn't that like criticising a film without watching it ?

My arguments come from logical coherency and some base principles........ they do not come from what authority says.......... if you had read my response to some "authorities" pootle tried to quote a page or two ago that would be as clear as day. But you didn;t read it did you ?

Therefore, your criticism comes accross as a bit flat..... Kinda like criticising a film you didn't see as being "far too colourful" in spite of the fact it was filmed in black and white.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

It's a bit rich to criticise my arguments without reading them, you DID just admit not reading them, right ?

Isn't that like criticising a film without watching it ?

My arguments come from logical coherency and some base principles........ they do not come from what authority says.......... if you had read my response to some "authorities" pootle tried to quote a page or two ago that would be as clear as day. But you didn;t read it did you ?

Therefore, your criticism comes accross as a bit flat..... Kinda like criticising a film you didn't see as being "far too colourful" in spite of the fact it was filmed in black and white.

Yours,

TGP

Your arguments are based on thin air, on fantasy.

Arbitary and self referential.

Here is a simple one for you to unravel - which comes first, the people or the area you claim to live in?

Does an unreal and arbitary fiction take precedence over real live, flesh and blood people?

[TGP]

To recap, by Injins own rules...........

a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

No exceptions.

You can have actions which are not moral but which are also not immoral - they are neutral, morally speaking.

Is killing another human being moral ?

Nope. breaks morality because it's not a rule for all humans - if it was we'd be a pile of rotting skulls and ravens would rule the earth.

If I kill you because while you are attempting to attack me, and despite attempting not to do so. That is immoral ?

If I am a sniper, I am in central London, and I have a terrorist in my sights. I have been informed he may well have a nuclear bomb in his possession. That terrorist just shouted "I will now set off this nuclear bomb, comrades. Praise be to [some deity]". And I pull the trigger. That is also immoral ?

If someone holds a knife to my childs throat and threatens to cut it unless I shoot my wife. I shoot him instead. That is also immoral ?

Is killing an animal moral ? Neutral, afaik.

If I kill an animal in order to provide food for some starving children. That is neutral, not a moral or immoral act ?

If I kill an animal in order to satisfy my cruel love of torturing animals, and I make it's death long and painful. That is neutral, not a moral or immoral act ?

If I kill an alien, that is not a human being, but is an animal. And that alien is a thinking moral creature just like you and me. That is neutral, not a moral or immoral act ?

Is taking without their permission an item owned by another human being moral ? Nope, because it breaks it's own premise - you are saying that property is a breakable concept, in order to gain property. Doesnt work as a moral.

I'm not sure what youre getting at. I am going to assume immoral.

If there is a terrorist who has legitimately bought all the parts of a nuclear bomb, assembled them, and has issued several statements saying he hopes to set it off on Monday.......... and I walk into his house Sunday night, pick up the bomb, walk out with it, dismantle it, and throw the pieces in the ocean (save the uranium which I sipose of safely) is that immoral ?

If I walk into the house of a person I know to be a good and kind hearted person who loves children. They are on holiday BTW and uncontactable. There is a loaf of bread on the side, that will go off weeks before they return. Outside is a straving child begging for bread and I have no bread to give him nor money to buy any. So I give him the bread. That is immoral ?

Is saving the life of another human being moral ?Nope. It's neutral.

If I save the life of a human child being attacked by wild lions at risk to myself. That is not moral, only neutral ?

If I save the life of a mad dictator ruling a country with an iron fist and killing millions in order to garner his favour, knowing that by doing so I condemn thousands or perhaps millions to death ? That is not immoral, only neutral ?

Is slavery (owning another human being as property) moral ? Immoral. Not a rule you can apply to all humans.

There was once a man. He lived in Nazi Germany. For motives that only he knows he purchased a few hundered jewish slaves from the nazi's. What we do know is..... he took those purchased slaves and used his ownership of them to protect them. He used his ownership to prevent them being sent to extermination camps. At great risk to himself he shipped them out of germany at the end of the war. 1098 people survived. The great majority would not have survived had he not purchased their ownership from the nazi's. His name was Oscar Schindler. All 1098 individuals, and the statre of Israel, considered his act extremely moral. You maintain that his purchase of those slaves was immoral ? That he should have refused to purchase them and not engaged in an immoral act like participating in slavery ?

Are you happy with all those designations ?

You don't want to introduce any exceptions at all ?

The people in london must die by nuclear blast (for example) if the sniper is to behave morally ?

My risking myself to save the life of a child from lions is not a moral act............ nor is feeding them with bread I know will be wasted, and I think the owner would be happy to donate, if I do not own the bread ?

Or Oscar Schindler should have refrused to purchase the slaves, in order to behave morally ?

By all means.......... go through and agree with them all one by one.

If you do so......... you are consistent with what you said earlier........... but what you say is "moral" is not a "morality" that other humans on the planet would recognise. In fact, I suspect everyone but sociopaths would count you an immoral man if you were put in all thoes situations, and made the choice YOU consider moral.

I think morality involves exceptions. It is too complex a matter to say "One definition fits all situations". If you do so........... you end up tied to performing an act (because you previously declared it moral) that you now beleive you should not perform (and vice versa).

Looking at the train of death and destruction you would have left in your wake......... the people dead who would be alive had you been "immoral" by your own standards....... even you will have difficulty saying, honestly and with a straight face, that you still stand by your "a moral is something to which there are no exceptions" rule.

Yours,

TGP

[Edited to make the quotes clearer and fix a few spelling errors]

Edited March 30, 2010 by TGP

[TGP]

Your arguments are based on thin air, on fantasy.

Arbitary and self referential.

They are both in some sense.

Then again, of course, so is your system. It too is arbitary and self-referential. I take that you don;t consider it fatal there.........should why should I consider it fatal here ?

Here is a simple one for you to unravel - which comes first, the people or the area you claim to live in?

The area they claim to live in.

It was here before there was a human on the planet.

I suspect you are referring to the state..........not the area.......... but again, in most cases, the answer is the state.

The UK was here before any living person today was. It was here first.

It was not here before some people long dead. But what matters about that ? It's the people around today/in the future we are concerned with. We can;t do anything for or against, moral or immoral, to the dead.

But I don;t really understand how those Q's and A's are relevent. Perhaps you can explain why it is relevant that the UK govt. was here before all humans alive today were ?

Does an unreal and arbitary fiction take precedence over real live, flesh and blood people?

No. It shouldn't.

On the other hand.......... you seem to assume that the "unreal and arbitary fiction" is not

a) Something they benefit from

Something they wish to keep around

c) Something they only keep in existence by their majority consent and

d) Controlled and Directed entirely by flesh and blood people

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

To recap, by Injins own rules...........

a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

No exceptions.

You can have actions which are not moral but which are also not immoral - they are neutral, morally speaking.

Are you happy with all those designations ?

You don;t want to introduce any exceptions at all ?

Nope.

The people in london must die by nuclear blast (for example) if the sniper is to behave morally ?

No idea what this means.

My risking myself to save the life of a child from lions is not a moral act............ nor is feeding them with bread I know will be wasted, and I think the owner would be happy to donate, if I do not own the bread ?

Or Oscar Schindler should have refrused to purchase the slaves, in order to behave morally ?

ALl neutral, yes indeedy.

By all means.......... go through and agree with them all one by one.

If you do so......... you are consistent with what you said earlier........... but what you say is "moral" is not a "morality" that other humans on the planet would recognise. In fact, I suspect everyone but sociopaths would count you an immoral man if you were put in all thoes situations, and made the choice YOU consider moral.

I think morality involves exceptions. It is too complex a matter to say "One defeinition fits all situations". If you do so........... you end up tied to performing an act (because you previously declared it moral) that you now beleive you should not perform (and vice versa).

Looking at the train of death and destruction you would have left in your wake......... the people dead who would be alive had you been "immoral" by your own standards....... even y7ou will have difficulty saying, honestly and with a straight face, that you still stand by your "a moral is something to which there are no exceptions" rule.

Yours,

TGP

Nope.

You don't have to act on morality, btw.

[Injin]

They are both in some sense.

Then again, of course, so is your system. It too is arbitary and self-referential. I take that you don;t consider it fatal there.........should why should I consider it fatal here ?

The area they claim to live in.

It was here before there was a human on the planet.

There are no areas. Just an indivisible universe.

I suspect you are referring to the state..........not the area.......... but again, in most cases, the answer is the state.

The UK was here before any living person today was. It was here first.

Really? Where was it befor 1706 then?

It was not here before some people long dead. But what matters about that ? It's the people around today/in the future we are concerned with. We can;t do anything for or against, moral or immoral, to the dead.

But I don;t really understand how those Q's and A's are relevent. Perhaps you can explain why it is relevant that the UK govt. was here before all humans alive today were ?

Well you are putting forth propositions that are based on fantasies. If I point out your fantsies, you have to either change your position or admit it's a fantasy.

No. It shouldn't.

On the other hand.......... you seem to assume that the "unreal and arbitary fiction" is not

a) Something they benefit from

Something they wish to keep around

c) Something they only keep in existence by their majority consent and

d) Controlled and Directed entirely by flesh and blood people

Yours,

TGP

Not at all.

I just assume that the fact that it's fictional means it's fictional.

What's the fuss?

Just admit that there is no state, there are no areas and that it's all made up gibberish and we can move on, after you've dropped all pretense at morality.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

By being born and hitting the age of sixteen I am agreeing to a contract with the State? Did I hear that right?

[TGP]

Nope.

[/quote']

I see. So .. lets just pick one.......

If a man holds a kinife to my childs throat, and tells me to shoot my wife or he will cut that throat and I shoot him instead that is immoral ?

You say that it is.

For one, On what basis ?

For two, Anyone else here want to agree with Injin ?

For three, what WOULD you do in that situation ? Let your childs throat be cut while you watch ? Shoot your wife ? Run screaming from the room, what ?

No idea what this means.

Then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension........ here it is again....

Your first statement,

a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

No exceptions.

Your 2nd statement,

Is killing another human being moral ?

Nope. breaks morality because it's not a rule for all humans - if it was we'd be a pile of rotting skulls and ravens would rule the earth.

The scneario I set up, which according to your rules is immoral

If I am a sniper, I am in central London, and I have a terrorist in my sights. I have been informed he may well have a nuclear bomb in his possession. That terrorist just shouted "I will now set off this nuclear bomb, comrades. Praise be to [some deity]". And I pull the trigger. That is immoral ?

If it is immoral to kill. It is always immoral to kill, no exceptions. Then the actions of that sniper are immoral, no ?

Or do you want an exception ? Something along the lines of "It can be moral to kill IF we can be sure that by so doing you save vastly more lives than you end." ? Especially in this case....... because the man is about to kill himself. So by shooting him you don't even take a life that was going to continue existing. All you do is save millions more lives. The guy is prepared to die, obviously. Why shouldn;t it be moral to prevent him taking 5 million people (almost none of whom want to die) with him ?

If killing is immoral......surely you will have prevented a great immoral act, one of the most immoral single acts in human history.

Or Oscar Schindler should have refrused to purchase the slaves, in order to behave morally ?

Nope.

I see, by purchasing those slaves he acted immorally....... even if he did it purely with the intention of saving their lives (all 1098 of them) and even if the people themselves purchased and sold regarded his action as a great moral act ? It's still immoral in Injin world, yes.

Why should your view override the views of the 1098 people he saved ? Surely.........given the ability to read this conversation........ they'd regard you as a F******* Moron.

Oscar Schindler was an immoral old slave trader and should have left those people in the hands of the nazi's to be gassed to death ?

Yes or No.

You don't have to act on morality, btw.

Fine, what I am setting up is that any rule requires space for exceptions........ especially where it conflicts with another of your rules. Thats the crucial point.

If killing is immoral........ and slavery is immoral....... what of a man who buys slaves in order to stop those people being killed and later releases them into freedom ? Which "moral" trumps the other, and how does it do so without exceptions ?

If a man is about to kill himself........and 5 million other people who do not wish to die...... why is it immoral to kill him, an act he obviously wants to accomplish, in such a way as you save the lives of the other 5 million almost all of whom want to be saved ?

Where your morals collide........ one or the other of them must give.

And I think I've demonstrated to any others reading the thread (in this case at least) that whgilst my moral system may not perfect, may not even be good......... it is light years ahead of your idiocy.

As I recall from above........ you wouldn;t even allow yourself to prevent a nuclear explosion by removing the bomb so long as the bomb is "validly someone elses property" ????? That would be immoral because it's stealing ! You'd say watching 5m people die without acting is not immoral, while performing an act like stealing the bomb in order to prevent it is immoral.

There are no areas. Just an indivisible universe.

Not if humans wish to divide it there isn't.

We've already done this bit. Isn't there a division between "the house injin owns" and "the rest of the universe" such that Injin can say "Hey, you guys. Stop sh*tting in my living room, it's mine. You can sh*t over there if you must, but this place is mine, I own it and I do not want you to do that here. Please respect my wishers in my own property"

What do property rights MEAN if they do not "divide the universe" into "the bits of it Injin owns" and "the rest" ?

Talking of the UK state

Really? Where was it befor 1706 then?

No, I said the UK state was here before any living person today. Please point to the person amongst us born before 1706.

Well you are putting forth propositions that are based on fantasies. If I point out your fantsies, you have to either change your position or admit it's a fantasy.

No I don't. I have to show you where it is a fantasy people desire and benefit from.

Your idea of property rights is a fantasy. There is nothing in the laws of physics/the universe that creates a right of property. It is only in the human mind that does so.

There is no difference between a brick over here lying about........... and one Injin owns..........EXCEPT within the heads of humans.

Nevertheless, it is a useful fantasy. One humans agree generally (although not in the form you like it). It is useful and something they want to keep around. Merely pointing out it is a fantasy does not invalidate this.

Same goes for the thing that exists only in peoples heads called a "state". It lives or dies by the same standard.

Show me where property rights are not a fantasy ? Or the right to inviobility of your own body ? They exist only in the same place a state does......in human minds. The universe does not care if I steal your brick. It has no idea that you own it. Only human minds know that, and the quality "ownership by injin" only exiosts there just like the quality "land within the state of the UK".

Not at all.

I just assume that the fact that it's fictional means it's fictional.

What's the fuss?

There is none. I made no bones about your idea of property rights being fictional in the same way. I have not used that as an argument against it.

I do not care.......... you seem to......... you seem to think it's every such a good argument that a "state" is a fiction. You seem unable to comprehend your ideas are the same "fictions". I'm not the one who consideres this a good argument. YOU are. By all means explain to me why you think it is a good argument.

Just admit that there is no state, there are no areas and that it's all made up gibberish and we can move on, after you've dropped all pretense at morality.

No. Being "made up" doesn't mean it does not exist........... just as your "made up" things like property rights, morals that it is not ok to kill humans, but that it is ok to kill animals, that there is such a thing as a "contract" and your other arguments exist only as "made up" things........ admit that they are all gibberish if you feel that "being a fiction makes it gibberish".

If you do not....... if you feel those are fictions, yes, but that they are not gibberish. That they are ideas that we should use because people wish to and they are useful........... then I'd make the same argument about the idea of a state.

You can't have it both ways "My made up ideas are perfectly valid, your valid ideas are made up".

By being born and hitting the age of sixteen I am agreeing to a contract with the State? Did I hear that right?

No you didn't hear it right.

By engaging in an activity where............ you have been informed there is a tax on that activity......... where the levying institution (usually a state) has legal standing to tax that activity........ you engage in a contract to pay the tax.

Much as when you are informed there is a fee for a parking space........ and the parking company does in fact own that space........ and then you pull into the space and leave your car there, you incur a contract to pay the designated fee.

We were about to start the argument over whether the state does actually have such a "standing/right/wahatever it is" to morally levy that fee........ but I kinda got sidetracked by Injins new idiocy on morality.

You can bring yourself up to speed....... by answering.......

Does the car parking company who owns the space have standing to levy a fee on that space by virtue of their ownership ? (no one yet is saying they do not)

If so......... you can answer "And how do you know that they actually own the space in an idealish situation" ?

Because that was going to be the starting point for the next bit. We've already agreed that such things as implicit contracts exist (the car parking example) and that such a charge is voluntary, if the people attempting to levy the charge have this "standing" (even if they might threaten court action for inability to pay....but not if they threaten to just break your legs if you don't pay).

You wouldn't believe the battle it's been to get those two, fairly rudimentary, concessions.

We are now onto "does the state have standing to levy that fee" ...... I was going to approach it through the only "standing" thats been agreed as valid so far, ownership.

If you explain to me how you know a car parking company owns that space we will use that as a starting point (and it's probably worth saying, I have no idea if I can bring off this argument or not, but I'm going to give it a try)

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 30, 2010 by TGP

[Injin]

Fine, what I am setting up is that any rule requires space for exceptions........ especially where it conflicts with another of your rules. Thats the crucial point.

If killing is immoral........ and slavery is immoral....... what of a man who buys slaves in order to stop those people being killed and later releases them into freedom ? Which "moral" trumps the other, and how does it do so without exceptions ?

If a man is about to kill himself........and 5 million other people who do not wish to die...... why is it immoral to kill him, an act he obviously wants to accomplish, in such a way as you save the lives of the other 5 million almost all of whom want to be saved ?

Where your morals collide........ one or the other of them must give.

No, they don't.

You can do an immoral action and have your reasoning understood. If you are traped in a cabin in winter and can't get anywhere and have to live on a diet of beans and powdered milk for a fortnight, we can understand why you ate it - but we don't call it good nutrition.

Similarly, if you wind up in a shitty isutation and you make the best of it in any way that you can, we don't have to call your actions good, but we can understand why you did them.

And I think I've demonstrated to any others reading the thread (in this case at least) that whgilst my moral system may not perfect, may not even be good......... it is light years ahead of your idiocy.

As I recall from above........ you wouldn;t even allow yourself to prevent a nuclear explosion by removing the bomb so long as the bomb is "validly someone elses property" ????? That would be immoral because it's stealing ! You'd say watching 5m people die without acting is not immoral, while performing an act like stealing the bomb in order to prevent it is immoral.

You don't have to act morally.

it would only be moral to steal the bomb if you owed those people anything and are remiss in not doing it. You don't owe anyone anything. It might be nice if you saved them, it might be applauded, it might be well thought of - but the cheering of crowds is not the basis for morality.

Not if humans wish to divide it there isn't.

We've already done this bit. Isn't there a division between "the house injin owns" and "the rest of the universe" such that Injin can say "Hey, you guys. Stop sh*tting in my living room, it's mine. You can sh*t over there if you must, but this place is mine, I own it and I do not want you to do that here. Please respect my wishers in my own property"

What do property rights MEAN if they do not "divide the universe" into "the bits of it Injin owns" and "the rest" ?

Talking of the UK state

No, I said the UK state was here before any living person today. Please point to the person amongst us born before 1706.

No I don't. I have to show you where it is a fantasy people desire and benefit from.

Your idea of property rights is a fantasy. There is nothing in the laws of physics/the universe that creates a right of property. It is only in the human mind that does so.

There is no difference between a brick over here lying about........... and one Injin owns..........EXCEPT within the heads of humans.

Nevertheless, it is a useful fantasy. One humans agree generally (although not in the form you like it). It is useful and something they want to keep around. Merely pointing out it is a fantasy does not invalidate this.

Same goes for the thing that exists only in peoples heads called a "state". It lives or dies by the same standard.

Show me where property rights are not a fantasy ? Or the right to inviobility of your own body ? They exist only in the same place a state does......in human minds. The universe does not care if I steal your brick. It has no idea that you own it. Only human minds know that, and the quality "ownership by injin" only exiosts there just like the quality "land within the state of the UK".

There is none. I made no bones about your idea of property rights being fictional in the same way. I have not used that as an argument against it.

I do not care.......... you seem to......... you seem to think it's every such a good argument that a "state" is a fiction. You seem unable to comprehend your ideas are the same "fictions". I'm not the one who consideres this a good argument. YOU are. By all means explain to me why you think it is a good argument.

No. Being "made up" doesn't mean it does not exist........... just as your "made up" things like property rights, morals that it is not ok to kill humans, but that it is ok to kill animals, that there is such a thing as a "contract" and your other arguments exist only as "made up" things........ admit that they are all gibberish if you feel that "being a fiction makes it gibberish".

If you do not....... if you feel those are fictions, yes, but that they are not gibberish. That they are ideas that we should use because people wish to and they are useful........... then I'd make the same argument about the idea of a state.

You can't have it both ways "My made up ideas are perfectly valid, your valid ideas are made up".

Yes I can.

Here is why -

My ideas match external, material reality.

Yours do not.

The idea that humans can imagine things to exist in the world and this be more important than the facts of the matter (i.e. that they don't exist at all) is pure, 100% balls out schizophrenia. Example - "Horses" is a useful concept which matches quite closely what really goes on in the world. "Unicorns" is useless, except where it overlaps with ideas about horses. you want me to consider the concept unicorns valid simpyl because you have thought it up. No chance.

[Jack's Creation]

I observe that people think countries are real- does that make them real?

You observe that people think property rights are real- does that make them real?

If property rights exist because people believe they exist, then countries exist for the same reason- both are as real or unreal as each other.

Both of these ideas only exist in the brains of human beings and both are equally abstract.

No. It's just the illusion that's real. The illusion is still and can only ever be, an illusion. Appearance and reality are not the same entity.

[Jack's Creation]

By being born and hitting the age of sixteen I am agreeing to a contract with the State? Did I hear that right?

Yes, didn't you know that babies are able to make rational decisions about implicit contractual arrangements regarding their lifetime of impending bonded labour?

Edited March 30, 2010 by Jack's Creation

[TGP]

No, they don't.

You can do an immoral action and have your reasoning understood. If you are traped in a cabin in winter and can't get anywhere and have to live on a diet of beans and powdered milk for a fortnight, we can understand why you ate it - but we don't call it good nutrition.

Similarly, if you wind up in a shitty isutation and you make the best of it in any way that you can, we don't have to call your actions good, but we can understand why you did them.

But we are not talking about nutrition we are talking about morals.

I notice you failed top answer my questions. Can I infer from that you are, personally, an immoral person ? That in plenty of circumstances you would commit acts that are immoral, despite you thinking they are immoral ?

Are you saying that........given your system of morals........ anyone put in such a bind where they have to choose becomes immoral, we are all immoral, in that case what do morals mean ?

I am also interested in your definition of WHY something is immoral/moral. I suspect I know what it is. I want to be sure before I proceeed on that basis.

I suspect it is restriction of freedom. It is immoral to restrict anothers freedom.

I'd like to set up cases where by restricting one persons freedom in a highly limited way (say by preventing him pressing a button by holding his arm but doing nothing else) you "save" the freedom of 5 million people by preserving their lives. in that context, a very tiny restriction of one mans freedom (holding his arm) allows 5 million people to have the freedom to do what they wish for the rest of their natural lives, where he would have restricted that permanently (had he pressed the button).

I take it you'd hold that that action "Physically restraining him from setting off a nuke" is immoral ?

Basically so I can demonstrate the absurd lengths to which this view takes you.

You don't have to act morally.

You don't HAVE to ............but surely the point of morals is that "you should do so in order to be a good person". You said so yourself.

a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

I am saying, given your standards of morals......... OScar Shindler was not a good person because he did something he shouldn't........ and the man holding back the terrorists arm, and so preventing him from setting off the nuke by restricting his freedom a tiny bit, is also not a "good person".

I think that conflicts with what people think of when they think "good person". In what respect is the man who lets the terrorist set off the nuke killing him, the terrorist and 5m others a "good person"... while the man who holds the terrorists arm to stop him is "not a good person".

it would only be moral to steal the bomb if you owed those people anything and are remiss in not doing it. You don't owe anyone anything. It might be nice if you saved them, it might be applauded, it might be well thought of - but the cheering of crowds is not the basis for morality.

No it isn't.

But you said "moral things are things you should do to be a good man". Is that sniper a "good" man or not ? Forget the cheering of crowds. Do you hold him to be a good man, or oscar schindler, or the man who managed to prevent the explosion by merely "stealing" the nuke, or the man who managed to prevent it by just "holding the terrorists arm" ? Are they good men or not ?

Presumably, (although you haven;t stated it) the people who do immoral things are "evil" men........ all of the above did immoral things according to you.....are they "evil" for saving all those lives by actions as innocuous as holding a mans arm away from a button ?

[qu]te

Yes I can.

Here is why -

My ideas match external, material reality.

Yours do not.

Go on then. Show me an aspect of external reality ........ a physical law......... a natural object...... anything that is not the product of a human mind......... that creates "property rights" or "makes human bodies inviolable" but does not make "all other animals bodies violable"....... before there were ever any humans in the world, how did the universe know those things ?

The idea that humans can imagine things to exist in the world and this be more important than the facts of the matter (i.e. that they don't exist at all) is pure, 100% balls out schizophrenia. Example - "Horses" is a useful concept which matches quite closely what really goes on in the world. "Unicorns" is useless, except where it overlaps with ideas about horses. you want me to consider the concept unicorns valid simpyl because you have thought it up. No chance.

No. I want to tell you that both "the state" and "property rights" are horses. Simple as that. They are constructs of human minds that match things in the real world.

You appear to be saying "anything constructed by the human mind is a unicorn" and I am saying, in that case both property rights and states are unicorns.

Please explain to me the quality property rights have that states do not.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

But we are not talking about nutrition we are talking about morals.

What's the difference?

Both are about actions in the real world that bring an individual information about the best way to act for long term happiness. both are based on observations about what happens after performing certain actions.

I notice you failed top answer my questions. Can I infer from that you are, personally, an immoral person ? That in plenty of circumstances you would commit acts that are immoral, despite you thinking they are immoral ?

Are you saying that........given your system of morals........ anyone put in such a bind where they have to choose becomes immoral, we are all immoral, in that case what do morals mean ?

No, morals are about the realm of choice - no choice, no morality (or immorality.)

I am also interested in your definition of WHY something is immoral/moral. I suspect I know what it is. I want to be sure before I proceeed on that basis.

I suspect it is restriction of freedom. It is immoral to restrict anothers freedom.

That's right, it is.

I'd like to set up cases where by restricting one persons freedom in a highly limited way (say by preventing him pressing a button by holding his arm but doing nothing else) you "save" the freedom of 5 million people by preserving their lives. in that context, a very tiny restriction of one mans freedom (holding his arm) allows 5 million people to have the freedom to do what they wish for the rest of their natural lives, where he would have restricted that permanently (had he pressed the button).

If you mean the bloke would have killed five million and you stop him, that's morally neutral. Isn't good, isn't bad.

Can you guess why it's morally neutral?

I take it you'd hold that that action "Physically restraining him from setting off a nuke" is immoral ?

Nope.

Basically so I can demonstrate the absurd lengths to which this view takes you.

You don't HAVE to ............but surely the point of morals is that "you should do so in order to be a good person". You said so yourself.

Nope. You have to do those actions in order to be a good person, but you don't have to be a good person.

a moral is a rule that applies to all humans. It's something humans should do in order to be good.

I am saying, given your standards of morals......... OScar Shindler was not a good person because he did something he shouldn't........ and the man holding back the terrorists arm, and so preventing him from setting off the nuke by restricting his freedom a tiny bit, is also not a "good person".

I think that conflicts with what people think of when they think "good person". In what respect is the man who lets the terrorist set off the nuke killing him, the terrorist and 5m others a "good person"... while the man who holds the terrorists arm to stop him is "not a good person".

No it isn't.

But you said "moral things are things you should do to be a good man". Is that sniper a "good" man or not ? Forget the cheering of crowds. Do you hold him to be a good man, or oscar schindler, or the man who managed to prevent the explosion by merely "stealing" the nuke, or the man who managed to prevent it by just "holding the terrorists arm" ? Are they good men or not ?

Presumably, (although you haven;t stated it) the people who do immoral things are "evil" men........ all of the above did immoral things according to you.....are they "evil" for saving all those lives by actions as innocuous as holding a mans arm away from a button ?

Yes I can.

Here is why -

My ideas match external, material reality.

Yours do not.

Go on then. Show me an aspect of external reality ........ a physical law......... a natural object...... anything that is not the product of a human mind......... that creates "property rights" or "makes human bodies inviolable" but does not make "all other animals bodies violable"....... before there were ever any humans in the world, how did the universe know those things ?

Property rights are an observation. If men accuulate resources and then get to continuously use them without theft, we get an economy, tech advances and all that other stuff. if they have the stuff they have made taken off them, there is no economy, no tech advances etc

No. I want to tell you that both "the state" and "property rights" are horses. Simple as that. They are constructs of human minds that match things in the real world.

The state doesn;'t match anything in the real world. Horses are real, states are not.

You appear to be saying "anything constructed by the human mind is a unicorn" and I am saying, in that case both property rights and states are unicorns.

Please explain to me the quality property rights have that states do not.

Yours,

TGP

Property rights are an observation, states are an excuse fantasy.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Injin

[kudukid]

TGP,

Your basic premise seems to be that whatever "the state says, goes"

As a thought experiment, where do you draw the line?

For example, lets say that in 10 years time there will be:

A tax on having sex more than 3 times a week.

A tax on leaving your house after 11 o clock at night.

A tax on having more than one dog.

All these things are voluntary and would be charged for.

Would you have any objections to these taxes?

[TGP]

TGP,

Your basic premise seems to be that whatever "the state says, goes"

Why do people insist on trying to pare it down to that. The reason my posts are long and complex....... is that the issue is long and complex.

It does not reduce to a nice simple 4 word phrase. If it did I would use that 4 word phrase.

My arguments DO NOT reduce to what the state says, goes.

If the state said "You Mr kudukid owe us $1bn for the pleasure of being born" that "does not go".

In fact. using the arguments I am using here......... the state saying "You must pay a tax for the NHS" does not go. (these arguments rely on non-excludability, and you can exclude from healthcare).

I failt to see how an argument that could not be used for something as everyday as "funding the NHS2 or "funding un-em benefits" means anything the state wants to do it can do.

As a thought experiment, where do you draw the line?

Well here I am drawing it (for the purpose of this argument) at non-excludability........ i.e. there is a service provided by the state which all within an area benefit from, and the state cannot exclude them from it except by georgaphic area. An example would be national defence. Another public health (but not healthcare.....things like sewers/sewage plants).

My personal "exlcusion zone" extends further than that in democracies, but I'm not really arguing about that here......... and it is not infinitely extendable.

For example, lets say that in 10 years time there will be:

A tax on having sex more than 3 times a week.

A tax on leaving your house after 11 o clock at night.

A tax on having more than one dog.

All these things are voluntary and would be charged for.

Would you have any objections to these taxes?

Yes and No. That is I must qualify the process to agree.

First, they have to be levied for non-excludable goods for the arguments I am making here to work.

.

Yes, I personally would have problems with some of these taxes. Although I would pay them. I would consider my ability to stop them limited to "voting for the party that says they will end them". It would not extend to evading them or using violence to get them revoked.

As you stipulated "in 10 years time". I assume those taxes have been proposed today........... and as we are a democratic state I assume that they have been thoroughly debated in public, and challenged unsuccessfully in the courts, I have had at least 2 chances to vote against them. Yet in all these cases I have been overruled by the will of the majority of the people of this country who voted for them.

None of them violate my positions on "minority rights". Or on inviolability of my body.

So...... I would regard them as valid taxes, even though I personally would disagree and vote for other taxes that are more sensible instead. No doubt some people out there have a similar position with another tax.... they voted against it, but will pay it having lost the vote........ Democracy means "may the best man win in a fair argument, and the loser accepts the result" (with caveats concerning rights etc).

I hope that clears it up somewhat. Although I may have muddied the waters in other ways.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

What's the difference?

Both are about actions in the real world that bring an individual information about the best way to act for long term happiness. both are based on observations about what happens after performing certain actions.

Because we are not defining an objective "good and bad nutrition" we are defining "good and bad people".

Nutrition can be objectively defined as "what a human body needs to function"

Good and Bad people cannot. You can be a good person who does what he needs to function, or a bad person who does the same.

You can't have infinitely bad nutirition and still function in the way that Hitler could be infinitely bad and still function.

(Me talking about putting people in a moral bind)

No, morals are about the realm of choice - no choice, no morality (or immorality.)

But these people all have a choice. They can do one thing, or another. I am just putting them in a position where they have to choose between doing what "injin says is moral" and what the vast majority of other people would say makes them good persons.

SAchindler had the choice of hiring those slaves, or not doing so. He choce to hire them. In that particular circumstance that would make him a "good" person in my eyes because my morals allow some flexibility of motive and circumstance. In your system that would make him immoral, and so "not a good person" because your inflexible morals do not allow for his motive and circumstance.

It's hard to regard a moral system as valid....... where a man saves 1098 lives, those people whose lives he save regard him as a good man, and he did not kill or maim others in any way to do it.............but he is still immoral BECAUSE he did it.

I am also interested in your definition of WHY something is immoral/moral. I suspect I know what it is. I want to be sure before I proceeed on that basis.

I suspect it is restriction of freedom. It is immoral to restrict anothers freedom.

That's right, it is.

Hold that thought. I said "It's immoral to restrict anothers freedom" you said "Yes it is". You allow no exceptions. It is always now immoral to restrict a persons freedom in your eyes.

I'd like to set up cases where by restricting one persons freedom in a highly limited way (say by preventing him pressing a button by holding his arm but doing nothing else) you "save" the freedom of 5 million people by preserving their lives. in that context, a very tiny restriction of one mans freedom (holding his arm) allows 5 million people to have the freedom to do what they wish for the rest of their natural lives, where he would have restricted that permanently (had he pressed the button).

If you mean the bloke would have killed five million and you stop him, that's morally neutral. Isn't good, isn't bad.

Still holding that thought ? How can this act be BOTH immoral and morally neutral.

You just agreed restrictions of anybopdies freedom are immoral, you allow no exceptions.

The guy in the above example restricted the terrorists freedom to set off a nuke. He wanted to do it, the man restricted his freedom of action to stop him.

You are now saying that it is morally neutral.

You can;t have it both ways. Is it morally neutral to restrict a mans freedom.........or immoral to do so.......... or is that dependent on circumstance (I.e. there ARE exceptions to any moral rule, given the right circumstance).

Your argument is internally contradictory you can;t say "restricting freedom to act is immoral, no exceptions" and "this man restricting this other mans freedom to act is a morally neutral act" they are mutually contradictory statements. Something has to give.

Can you guess why it's morally neutral?

Given you can;t agree with yourself over whether it is or it isn't........ I have NO IDEA why you might consider it neutral or immoral or moral....... It depends on which of your two mutually exclusive statements you are listening to today.

I take it you'd hold that that action "Physically restraining him from setting off a nuke" is immoral ?

Nope.

So how is it both immoral to restrict anothers freedom........ and morally neutral to do the same thing....... if there are no exceptions.

You don't HAVE to ............but surely the point of morals is that "you should do so in order to be a good person". You said so yourself.

Nope. You have to do those actions in order to be a good person, but you don't have to be a good person.

Thats what I said "you should do these to be a good person". So..... OSCAR SCHINDLER WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON because he committted an immoral act by purchasing slaves. And the sniper is not a good person because he killed someone setting off a nuke. And the man who steals the nuke from the man who legitimately owns it (and wants to set it off in london) is not a good person. And the man who restricts anothers freedom to act (which you consider immoral on some days and neutral on others) is "not a good person" on those days you consider such restrictions by one human on another immoral.

Property rights are an observation. If men accuulate resources and then get to continuously use them without theft, we get an economy, tech advances and all that other stuff. if they have the stuff they have made taken off them, there is no economy, no tech advances etc

So. That doesn;t make them an objective fact.

I can make similar observations. Taxes are neccessary to fund non-excludable goods etc. etc. You are telling me that this doesn;t stop them being a "fantasy" ........ so how do your observations stop property rights from being a "fantasy".

Thgey both exist in teh same place ONLY (human minds) and for the same reasons (humans want them to exist). Either both are horses, or both are unicorns.

You have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts.........property rights are every bit as much a construct of the human mind as states are. They reflect actual actions in the real world equally. They are either equally horses, or unicorns.

For you to say "states don't exist" is only as valid as me saying "property rights don't exist".

The state doesn;'t match anything in the real world. Horses are real, states are not.

Neiother do property rights. Property rights do not match anything in the real world. There is no "quality of matter" that makes it injins property. There is no "quality of matter" that makes it part of the UK state. There is ONLY the fact that human minds consider that object injins property, and the fact that human minds consider this area part of the UK.

Property rights are an observation, states are an excuse fantasy.

Property rights are an excuse fantasy, states are an observation.

Stating does not make it so. Show me something outside the human mind that says property rights exist, and I will show you something equally outside the human mind that shows that states exist.

I'll match you example for example as long as you wish to go on.

Either they are both "horses" or they are both "unicorns".

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 30, 2010 by TGP