Do You Support the Initiation of Force?

[Canceled.2014.1]

No, that completely misunderstands what morality is. If morality is not universally applicable, then it simply subjective preferences. This would be like saying that rape is wrong because you prefer it over not raping; that yellow is better than purple. Objective morality is universally applicable and demonstrable.

There will be situations in which initiating violence could be acceptable.

Our society has rules and laws. If someone breaks those laws, they are tried and punished if found guilty. If someone is breaking the laws and refuses to comply with law enforcement, do we expect law enforcement to simply walk away?

 

[ironhead]

what? so you're saying that there is zero case for initiating violence? you're confused about the concept of morality. it does not need to be universally applied.

also your rape comparison is horrible. there are times when it is moral to initiate violence against one how has not initiated force against you. your question is a blanket question, ignoring real situations. i think you should study up on morality a bit before you make your next post.

Please explain why rape is wrong, if not because violence was initiated? Because you don't like it? If this is why, then it could be considered moral by the rapist who obviously does prefer to rape.

Which situations am I ignoring? When is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against someone? How is behavior to be considered moral if it is not applicable to all individuals (assuming they have the capacity for understanding moral rules)?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Please explain why rape is wrong, if not because violence was initiated? Because you don't like it? If this is why, then it could be considered moral by the rapist who obviously does prefer to rape.

Which situations am I ignoring? When is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against someone? How is behavior to be considered moral if it is not applicable to all individuals (assuming they have the capacity for understanding moral rules)?

So the police are only allowed to arrest someone who is willing to come with them?

 

[ironhead]

what? so you're saying that there is zero case for initiating violence? you're confused about the concept of morality. it does not need to be universally applied.

also your rape comparison is horrible. there are times when it is moral to initiate violence against one how has not initiated force against you. your question is a blanket question, ignoring real situations. i think you should study up on morality a bit before you make your next post.

Subjective morals, such as you mentioned, are simply preferences. Objective morality, such as the non-aggression principle (NAP), can be universally applied to all individuals (assuming they have the cognitive capacity for moral reasoning). This principle is based on the demonstrable fact that each individual has ownership in his/her body, and thus, his/her labor. To deny this is ultimately to deny all property rights.

 

[ironhead]

So the police are only allowed to arrest someone who is willing to come with them?

I would argue that government police are illegitimate, as they are paid for by money taken via the initiation of violence. Voluntary law, contracts, arbitration, and governance are more than possible, they are preferable, both morally and economically.

But even if you accept the legitimacy of the law-courts and government police, these are also based on violations of property rights (including one's self), which is ultimately based on the protection against the initiation of violence.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I would argue that government police are illegitimate, as they are paid for by money taken via the initiation of violence. Voluntary law, contracts, arbitration, and governance are more than possible, they are preferable, both morally and economically.

But even if you accept the legitimacy of the law-courts and government police, these are also based on violations of property rights (including one's self), which is ultimately based on the protection against the initiation of violence.

That all sounds nice. But what is the alternative to having some sort of police or law enforcement? Anarchy?

Also, if you are saying that all gov't funding and action is based on violations of rights, wouldn't that mean any violence against the gov't is simply self-defense?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I would argue that government police are illegitimate, as they are paid for by money taken via the initiation of violence. Voluntary law, contracts, arbitration, and governance are more than possible, they are preferable, both morally and economically.

But even if you accept the legitimacy of the law-courts and government police, these are also based on violations of property rights (including one's self), which is ultimately based on the protection against the initiation of violence.

you are free to live somewhere else....by choosing to stay here, you have accepted the social contract. there are ways to change the laws if you choose to stay.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Subjective morals, such as you mentioned, are simply preferences. Objective morality, such as the non-aggression principle (NAP), can be universally applied to all individuals (assuming they have the cognitive capacity for moral reasoning). This principle is based on the demonstrable fact that each individual has ownership in his/her body, and thus, his/her labor. To deny this is ultimately to deny all property rights.

they are not preferences. i don't what school of morality you believe in, but your ideas are not anywhere near what is commonly accepted as morality. have you ever taken a philosophy class or studied any philosophers? or are you just making up your own rules and definitions as you go along?

where do you get property rights, if not by some force? you had to take the land from someone. your views are very strange to say the least.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

E=ironhead;1007219]Please explain why rape is wrong, if not because violence was initiated? Because you don't like it? If this is why, then it could be considered moral by the rapist who obviously does prefer to rape.

wow. you really don't know why rape is wrong? it is a violation of one's body, using your jargon.

Which situations am I ignoring? When is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against someone? How is behavior to be considered moral if it is not applicable to all individuals (assuming they have the capacity for understanding moral rules)?

the police situation for starters....or if see some guy beating on his wife or girlfriend, i will intervene if possible. that guy may believe he was justified in his force, say she slapped him, thus initiating force, and his beating her went beyond the pale. i don't get where you're coming from.

you simply cannot apply X moral to every situation. it doesn't work that way. for example, telling a lie is considered immoral by most, using your logic, everyone should accept telling a lie is immoral, no matter what. thus, if you had to lie to save someone's life, you would consider that immoral using your all or nothing, simplistic, approach to morality.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Subjective morals, such as you mentioned, are simply preferences. Objective morality, such as the non-aggression principle (NAP), can be universally applied to all individuals (assuming they have the cognitive capacity for moral reasoning). This principle is based on the demonstrable fact that each individual has ownership in his/her body, and thus, his/her labor. To deny this is ultimately to deny all property rights.

There are also obligations to society for the benefits received from the labors of the whole.

 

[ironhead]

That all sounds nice. But what is the alternative to having some sort of police or law enforcement? Anarchy?

Also, if you are saying that all gov't funding and action is based on violations of rights, wouldn't that mean any violence against the gov't is simply self-defense?

Ultimately, yes, though no private citizens would stand any chance of defeating the state, such as it is. To answer your initial question, under a stateless condition, there would be an incredible incentive to have insurance, which would be connected to dispute resolution services. These agencies would ultimately begin to work with one another, using polycentric law production, and there would be compliance with law due to the immense economic consequences of violating property rights.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ultimately, yes, though no private citizens would stand any chance of defeating the state, such as it is. To answer your initial question, under a stateless condition, there would be an incredible incentive to have insurance, which would be connected to dispute resolution services. These agencies would ultimately begin to work with one another, using polycentric law production, and there would be compliance with law due to the immense economic consequences of violating property rights.

But who would enforce the law, with no "state"?

 

[ironhead]

wow. you really don't know why rape is wrong? it is a violation of one's body, using your jargon.



the police situation for starters....or if see some guy beating on his wife or girlfriend, i will intervene if possible. that guy may believe he was justified in his force, say she slapped him, thus initiating force, and his beating her went beyond the pale. i don't get where you're coming from.

you simply cannot apply X moral to every situation. it doesn't work that way. for example, telling a lie is considered immoral by most, using your logic, everyone should accept telling a lie is immoral, no matter what. thus, if you had to lie to save someone's life, you would consider that immoral using your all or nothing, simplistic, approach to morality.

I know why rape is immoral, you are the one who seems to be fuzzy about why it is wrong. But, based on what you are saying now,rape is wrong due to the initiation of force (as a violation of one's body; one's property rights). That is precisely what I am arguing as well. However, I am applying this principle universally, as it is not morality if it doesn't apply to everyone. What good would morality be if it only applied to some people, or some aspects of certain people, during certain times? For example, why is it moral for the state to rob someone without their consent (taxation), but immoral for me to a thug on the street to rob you at gunpoint?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Ultimately, yes, though no private citizens would stand any chance of defeating the state, such as it is. To answer your initial question, under a stateless condition, there would be an incredible incentive to have insurance, which would be connected to dispute resolution services. These agencies would ultimately begin to work with one another, using polycentric law production, and there would be compliance with law due to the immense economic consequences of violating property rights.

So you would put corporations in charge? And you expect more respect for individual in that scenario?

Fines and economic pressures are all well and good. But there are times when there is a need for armed force to stop criminal activities.

You scenario would work well in suburbia, but against a well funded drug cartel it would be laughable.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Ultimately, yes, though no private citizens would stand any chance of defeating the state, such as it is. To answer your initial question, under a stateless condition, there would be an incredible incentive to have insurance, which would be connected to dispute resolution services. These agencies would ultimately begin to work with one another, using polycentric law production, and there would be compliance with law due to the immense economic consequences of violating property rights.

The private citizens are the state. A dozen protestors have no chance. But millions of citizens at the ballot box do.

 

[ironhead]

But who would enforce the law, with no "state"?

Well, if you are a dispute resolution organization (DRO), would you want to do business with someone who violates their contracts? Moreover, other DRO's would most likely communicate with one another as they would often interact in contract disputes, and if all DRO's refused someone protection services because they violate their contracts, then someone would be defenseless. The incentive would be immense. Governance does not require government.

 

[ironhead]

The private citizens are the state. A dozen protestors have no chance. But millions of citizens at the ballot box do.

That is absolutely fallacious. The individuals in the government wield the state's power, derived from forced taxation, not anyone else. Just because 51% of the electorate pull a lever every four years doesn't change the relationship. Even if you accept this unicorn fallacy, how does this work in practice? Do you feel the average person has been a strong influence on the government over the last century? Would you not say that the most well-connected elites (usually powerful banking and corporate interests) have a disparity of influence in the extreme?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well, if you are a dispute resolution organization (DRO), would you want to do business with someone who violates their contracts? Moreover, other DRO's would most likely communicate with one another as they would often interact in contract disputes, and if all DRO's refused someone protection services because they violate their contracts, then someone would be defenseless. The incentive would be immense. Governance does not require government.

Who said I was talking about contracts.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

That is absolutely fallacious. The individuals in the government wield the state's power, derived from forced taxation, not anyone else. Just because 51% of the electorate pull a lever every four years doesn't change the relationship. Even if you accept this unicorn fallacy, how does this work in practice? Do you feel the average person has been a strong influence on the government over the last century? Would you not say that the most well-connected elites (usually powerful banking and corporate interests) have a disparity of influence in the extreme?

So you would create a new elite in the form of insurance company and dispute resolution groups? If the only downside to crime is economic consequences, would that not make bribery and graft even more rampant? Especially since there would be no law enforcement to fear?

 

[ironhead]

So you would put corporations in charge? And you expect more respect for individual in that scenario?

Fines and economic pressures are all well and good. But there are times when there is a need for armed force to stop criminal activities.

You scenario would work well in suburbia, but against a well funded drug cartel it would be laughable.

You've got it backwards. Corporations exist in their current form because of state protection and limited liability law. In a free market, corporate charters would likely be far different. Moreover, there would be no state protection. As for drug cartels - don't be ridiculous. They wouldn't exist at all if weren't for the illegality of drugs. If drugs were legalized, peaceful businesses would sell drugs at much lower prices, with much greater safety. Without the state, the cartels would have no money and no power.