V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
I think your drawing of a 1:1 connection between personal property (house) and a large segment of land run largely by external forces (state/country) is tenuous to say the very least.
2012 Presidential election thread
- Thread starter Peter Joseph
- Start date
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
No it's not, because ex hypothesi all the features that are supposed to make the state situation non-coercive are also part of the personal property situation. In both cases, there is a condition such that if somebody is at X, then some entity will do Y to them. Furthermore, in both cases, there is the option of leaving. Those are, as far as I can tell from what you said, the relevant features. What possible difference would it make to say that in one case you're talking about personal property and in the other case you're talking about a state?
Badbird
Never banned
Einherjar86
Active Member
WAT Morality is a code of values to guide mans choices and actions. The choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.
That's rationality. Some times I think you try thinking so abstractly you end up talking out of your ass.
Fair enough
I think abstractly though because it helps to achieve a removed perspective, which I believe is important when debating topics such as this.Morality is a dangerous term because, as a code of values, it must hold true no matter what the circumstances. This is why it is difficult (if not impossible) for people to reconcile their own moral codes with those of others that might be different. Morality purports itself as an all-encompassing set of ideals that are unyielding; but this is a very egocentric pursuit. Morality often obscures rationality because people believe they are acting in another person's best interest according to their own moral code, when in fact they would do better to discard their ideals and think rationally about the matter.
Acting ethically and acting morally aren't the same thing.
I agree that consent among voters on a local level is more plausible.
I also understand your point about the difficulty for analysts, but I don't think that warrants an excuse as to why people should vote. I suppose, if we want to argue for a middle ground, those who don't want to vote could show up at the polls and write "I'M NOT VOTING" on the ballot
That would make it easier for the analysts.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Fair enough
Morality is a dangerous term because, as a code of values, it must hold true no matter what the circumstances. This is why it is difficult (if not impossible) for people to reconcile their own moral codes with those of others that might be different. Morality purports itself as an all-encompassing set of ideals that are unyielding; but this is a very egocentric pursuit. Morality often obscures rationality because people believe they are acting in another person's best interest according to their own moral code, when in fact they would do better to discard their ideals and think rationally about the matter.
Acting ethically and acting morally aren't the same thing.
Morality will obscure rationality if one person is acting in another persons best interest or thinking for them subjectively. As an individual morality is objectively rational.
and I agree ethics and morals are not the same thing.
wow, see, I took a slight shot at you and didn't create a bitch-fest. I guess those emoticons are there for a reason!
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. If a moral code is used to judge the value of an act, this cannot be strictly individual. Furthermore, morality presents itself in a way that, while it may only apply to an individual, it should be accepted by the collective. If one person holds a certain set of morals, it is common for that person to believe those ideals should be accepted by all. This is a rough description of morality as it was conceived by Kant.
I'm hesitant to support anything that purports to be a set of constant positive ideals. Morality offers strict guidelines that do not change no matter the situation; but this is a flawed approach to problem solving. What people should do is assess the situation and follow certain ethical rules depending on the circumstances. A moral code allows for no maneuvering.
"Moral" codes offered by religious or legal institutions are excellent and necessary because they create a set of commonly agree-upon rules to abide by; but the real challenge is knowing when to ignore these codes.
Well, there's taking a "slight shot" and then there's being an asshole. You've done both.
Dak
mentat
I am referring to initial, aggressive action; not responsive, defensive actions.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Oh, you mean like the sort of thing that would happen if you kicked somebody off your property?
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Matt
Active Member
Ok guys so lets just say Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc suddenly disappeared. What do you think would happen? Do you honestly think that the wealthy would suddenly open their wallets?
Cyth - sure. And you're either blinded by your philosophy or simply do not care what would happen to those people.
Cyth - sure. And you're either blinded by your philosophy or simply do not care what would happen to those people.
Dak
mentat
Mathiäs;9925295 said:
Merely ending socialistic programs would not by itself solve all issues. The primary reason poor people exist in our modern society, excluding laziness or lack of ability, is the amount of red tape preventing entrepreneurship, which has been put in place by government at the behest of various entrepreneurs to eliminate competition. It is, of course, much more desirable to toss out pennies on the dollar in social programs instead of enduring competition.
It is also more desirable to many to accept the scraps of socialism than to be put in a position where they cannot make excuses about their lot in life or must work. Thus, this "mummer's farce" continues.
@Cyth: This isn't the thread for that
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Mathiäs;9925295 said:
Yes, some of them at least. A lot of them already do (although charitable giving generally declines during recessions) and it's not unreasonable to suppose that government programs crowd out a non-trivial amount of private assistance for the poor. If you want this discussion to be fruitful, how about you point out all the starvation deaths among people not receiving government assistance in the US?
Really? I'm blinded? You're the one who makes sweeping generalizations about an entire class of people based on what I can only guess is some crude caricature you got from a Dickens novel.
Bullshit. The only way you can seriously entertain that possibility is if you ignored what I wrote. I already said I was fine with welfare. I simply asked you for evidence for your claim.
Matt
Active Member
I've been fucking with you this entire time, and I haven't read many of your posts so I honestly don't know what you've said, though I was mainly talking to Dak when bringing up welfare.
But - be honest - do you really expect anyone (the rich, middle class, etc) to give significantly enough to replace government funded aid programs? I also do not agree with your assumption that they crowd out charity; why would this be true? It's evident that even with current government aid, millions of people are still living in poverty.
The idea of really small government is great, but in practice, it doesn't work. The new deal was created for a reason. The rich did nothing to help people during the great depression and have never significantly helped during other downturns. I don't need to cite any sources for this because everyone knows that it's true.
Dak
mentat
Mathiäs;9925456 said:
You have an interesting style of arguing. You use a historical example of disastrous economic results from government meddling and control as a reason for further control and meddling in a seperate area, while simultaneously admitting to colossal failure in that separate area as well. You are making my case for me.
Einherjar86
Active Member
And you're saying a moral code must be individualist; but I'm saying that a moral code is never individualist.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I'm saying it starts with the rational individual mind as a matter of choice. Whether accepted or not.
Einherjar86
Active Member
And indeed, morality can only be something subjective (since we both agree there is no universal set of objective ideals).
However, I'm interested in this statement:
Morality as an entirely individual pursuit is a fantasy; we use morality to judge our choices, actions, reactions, etc. and this necessarily involves others around us. There is no such this as a constant individual moral system, just as there is no moral universal constant.
Furthermore, as an ideological code, morality dictates itself as being for the collective. If one person believes in a certain set of ideals, it follows (by the very nature of those ideals) that he or she should believe that those same ideals should be upheld by others universally. So, even while morality begins as an individual perspective, by definition it extends itself to the collective.
However, I'm interested in this statement:
Morality as an entirely individual pursuit is a fantasy; we use morality to judge our choices, actions, reactions, etc. and this necessarily involves others around us. There is no such this as a constant individual moral system, just as there is no moral universal constant.
Furthermore, as an ideological code, morality dictates itself as being for the collective. If one person believes in a certain set of ideals, it follows (by the very nature of those ideals) that he or she should believe that those same ideals should be upheld by others universally. So, even while morality begins as an individual perspective, by definition it extends itself to the collective.
Similar threads
