Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[navkat]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

So, you don't mind moral values, you just want the right ones.  As according to...

I want as few as possible without being the cause of a whole lot of people getting seriously ass-raped because of indecision/inaction.

How much income tax did you pay last year?  In absolute dollars?

I feel uncomfortable answering that in a public forum.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, our social contract also says, "promote the general welfare".

I'm pretty sure the majority of politicians from both sides of the aisle would attest this to be their goal when they write new laws.

As long as general welfare doesn't impede personal choice, I'm fine with it. Social morals must be decided by society. Our society makes the decision by electing people that claim to see social morals in one way or another. The way I see it, then, social morals should define morals when interacting directly with other humans in a social group. "It is illegal to smoke in a public building" seems like a social moral. "It is illegal to smoke." though, seems like a personal choice that a social group is trying to enforce. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

Corporations are not persons. They are a social contract between employer, employee, customer and supplier. Therefore, they fall under social morality and I have no issue with the government having standards for that social contract. However, I would not support the government making a ruling that homosexuals cannot own a corporation, because the homosexuality is a personal moral decision, not a social one.

[LMNO]

Y'know, it's more fun arguing with navkat.  Just saying.

[navkat]

So, our social contract also says, "promote the general welfare".

I'm pretty sure the majority of politicians from both sides of the aisle would attest this to be their goal when they write new laws.

As long as general welfare doesn't impede personal choice, I'm fine with it. Social morals must be decided by society. Our society makes the decision by electing people that claim to see social morals in one way or another. The way I see it, then, social morals should define morals when interacting directly with other humans in a social group. "It is illegal to smoke in a public building" seems like a social moral. "It is illegal to smoke." though, seems like a personal choice that a social group is trying to enforce. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

Corporations are not persons. They are a social contract between employer, employee, customer and supplier. Therefore, they fall under social morality and I have no issue with the government having standards for that social contract. However, I would not support the government making a ruling that homosexuals cannot own a corporation, because the homosexuality is a personal moral decision, not a social one.

Again; well put.

[navkat]

Y'know, it's more fun arguing with navkat.  Just saying.

IT'S NOT MY FAULT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A BREAKBEAT IS.

[navkat]

Y'know, it's more fun arguing with navkat.  Just saying.

IT'S NOT MY FAULT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A BREAKBEAT IS.

ilubb

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Y'know, it's more fun arguing with navkat.  Just saying.

More fun for you maybe

[LMNO]

DON'T IMPOSE YOUR MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS ON ME!

[Cramulus]

[Kai]

I don't know, it just seems like as a social species that live in large congregations and depend highly on each other for our daily needs, that a system where we help each other will benefit everyone rather than pretending we're all our own little separate isolated tribes with nothing but self reliance to save us (while hypocritically drinking our starbucks coffee every morning and eating beef from argentina and rice from china for dinner and chocolate from east africa afterwards).

[LMNO]

What Kai said.


I find the issue of compassion to be in a grey area between "moral" and "biological survival skill".  Just because it's a staple of almost every religion on the planet doesn't mean it's not actually hardwired into our brains.

[Kai]

What Kai said.


I find the issue of compassion to be in a grey area between "moral" and "biological survival skill".  Just because it's a staple of almost every religion on the planet doesn't mean it's not actually hardwired into our brains.

Loyal Rue would say that the reason its a part of every religion is /because/ its hardwired into our brains, as religion is an evolutionary prescription for individual wholeness and social cohesion, things that are needed by organisms which are conscious, both social and personal.

Then you notice what eventually happens to groups which don't provide for a social cohesive force and isolate themselves; they end up falling apart eventually, failing through social entropy, lack of input from the outside and inability to change with the changing environment.

[AFK]

Indeed, I think that it IS in almost every religion IS evidence that it is naturally hardwired into our brain to some degree. 

Kai beat me to it and said it much more eloquently. 

[Requia ☣]

Indeed, I think that it IS in almost every religion IS evidence that it is naturally hardwired into our brain to some degree. 

Kai beat me to it and said it much more eloquently. 

Kai does that a lot.

[Kai]

  Thank you.