Quote from: EarthBound SpIRiT on February 11, 2010, 05:15:03 PM
What was wrong with RR?
I thought he did an ok job with lots of things. The economy, improving America's world image from an American's pov and getting the Iranian hostages released to name a few.
He certainly has had a great impact on Conservatism as it exists today.
I'm a Libertarian not a Republican.
:lulz:
At least tell me what's wrong with being a Libertarian... :argh!:
The only thing I trust less than the government is the corporation. If you think they've got your best interests in mind I've got an ocean liner in Utah I want to sell you. Since we're talking about your best interests, I'm concerned about your paint thinner habit.
Also, Ron Paul.
While I'm at it, conservativism as it exists today is completely fucked and has lost all sight of what it's supposed to stand for. Thanks Reagan.
Shit, on paper conservativism sounds great.
Lots of checks on government? Minimal interference with individual liberties? Upholding the constitution? Being fiscally responsible? Fuck yeah, sign me up.
In practice, it's nothing like that.
I'm not a liberal or a democrat but "conservatives" have consistently fucked up the budget and have fucked with the rights of citizens for as long as I have been alive. They've completely gone against the ideals they espouse. Up until Obama (and it's still early in his presidency, plus he inherited a fucking nightmare from his predecessor), democrats have been way more fiscally responsible than republicans, which kind of seems like a ludicrous thing to me. If republicans were what they claim they are, we'd be in much better shape.
I'm all for a third party but the libertarians seem to basically take all of the shittiest things about the GOP and distill them into a somehow even shittier collection of ideals. Trusting corporations is what got us into the train wreck we're in now.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 23, 2010, 06:40:15 AM
The only thing I trust less than the government is the corporation. If you think they've got your best interests in mind I've got an ocean liner in Utah I want to sell you. Since we're talking about your best interests, I'm concerned about your paint thinner habit.
Also, Ron Paul.
While I'm at it, conservativism as it exists today is completely fucked and has lost all sight of what it's supposed to stand for. Thanks Reagan.
Shit, on paper conservativism sounds great.
Lots of checks on government? Minimal interference with individual liberties? Upholding the constitution? Being fiscally responsible? Fuck yeah, sign me up.
In practice, it's nothing like that.
I'm not a liberal or a democrat but "conservatives" have consistently fucked up the budget and have fucked with the rights of citizens for as long as I have been alive. They've completely gone against the ideals they espouse. Up until Obama (and it's still early in his presidency, plus he inherited a fucking nightmare from his predecessor), democrats have been way more fiscally responsible than republicans, which kind of seems like a ludicrous thing to me. If republicans were what they claim they are, we'd be in much better shape.
I'm all for a third party but the libertarians seem to basically take all of the shittiest things about the GOP and distill them into a somehow even shittier collection of ideals. Trusting corporations is what got us into the train wreck we're in now.
TITCM.
I'm not registered with any of the local parties; I'll go all in-depth into it when election time rolls around and find out which party/candidate is closest to my views. The way things are looking now, I'll probably vote Green.
Quote from: EarthBound SpIRiT on February 23, 2010, 05:44:54 AM
At least tell me what's wrong with being a Libertarian... :argh!:
Libertarianism of the majority American brand, propagated by the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, the Libertarian Party et al is philosophical rubbish tailor-made for 13 year olds.
Lets put it this way. Imagine a two man robbery taking place. One guy covers you with a gun, while the other guy grabs the loot and runs away with it. In the Libertarian scheme of things, the guy holding the gun (ie the government) is the only one who is ever held to fault, while the other guy is lauded and praised for his visionary and innovative "wealth creation" skills. Common sense on the other hand would dictate both are as bad as each other, and that their mostly illusory opposition to the other is part of a two-man con, designed to get people backing one faction or another while not realising both work in concert to achieve their aims.
And that's just for starters. Don't get me going on Libertarian apologists for sweat-shops in the third world, reflexive hatred of unions in theory and in practice (rational self-interest is only for bosses), misunderstanding of what capitalism actually means (protip: bankers and financial speculators were never considered capitalists) and in some more extreme cases, very real hatred of democracy. This list could get longer, but I've only slept one hour in the past day, and that was heavily interrupted, so you'll have to excuse me while I pass out over here instead of continue this post.
:mittens: to cain and annabell
I want to like libertarianism. But I do not see the Free Market as this magical channel for freedom. I see it as another oppressive beast, something so big and pervasive that we cannot control it even though it determines nearly every aspect of our everyday lives.
Cram, you should read Kevin Carson at http://mutualist.blogspot.com/ He's a non-crazy, left-leaning libertarian who frequently quotes Robert Anton Wilson and makes some excellent points.
Some variants of libertarianism aren't, in my opinion, too bad, especially more intellectual and nuanced approaches its just that capital L Libertarianism in America is corporate hagiography and nothing more.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 06:42:13 PM
:mittens: to cain and annabell
I want to like libertarianism. But I do not see the Free Market as this magical channel for freedom. I see it as another oppressive beast, something so big and pervasive that we cannot control it even though it determines nearly every aspect of our everyday lives.
I dunno, I've left libertarianism behind, but I still believe in the free market.
I just don't think libertarians believe in the free market. Free market means you don't put up with monopolists, and you certainly don't take shit from the people who control things that were never part of the free market in the first place (infrastructure). It means unions are a damn good thing (but need to be subject to the same anti monopoly controls as businesses).
It
never means the kind of bullshit the supposedly free market republicans pull.
A truly free market requires truly free people. It's thus as viable as national scale communism. Also, it's buzzword or code...
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 06:42:13 PM
:mittens: to cain and annabell
I want to like libertarianism. But I do not see the Free Market as this magical channel for freedom. I see it as another oppressive beast, something so big and pervasive that we cannot control it even though it determines nearly every aspect of our everyday lives.
isn't seeing the market as an oppressive beast just as fanciful as seeing it as a magical freedom channel?
the market is supply, demand, and the resultant price fluctuations attempting to reach equilibrium. oh, and a healthy dose of monkey irrationality.
that's it.
the magical channel for freedom seems off base to me because a free market and economic freedom are the same thing. the one is not the result of the other.
the oppressive beast seems off base to me because without some threat of force, where is the oppression? and if there is threat of force (i.e. govt), then there is no free market...
The free market could possibly work if corporations were abolished and the people making the decisions were held directly accountable for their actions instead of this corporate personhood bullshit.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2010, 07:38:33 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 06:42:13 PM
:mittens: to cain and annabell
I want to like libertarianism. But I do not see the Free Market as this magical channel for freedom. I see it as another oppressive beast, something so big and pervasive that we cannot control it even though it determines nearly every aspect of our everyday lives.
isn't seeing the market as an oppressive beast just as fanciful as seeing it as a magical freedom channel?
the market is supply, demand, and the resultant price fluctuations attempting to reach equilibrium. oh, and a healthy dose of monkey irrationality.
that's it.
My roommate believes that the Free Market is capable of solving all our problems. He thinks we should privatize everything and let supply and demand iron out the wrinkles of modern living.
Sure, that totally worked for artists, who can now only comment on
certain parts of culture for fear of violating some guarded piece of IP.
The Health Care Industry is doing a
kick ass job of providing everybody with affordable health care.
And now that there are a ton of "green" products available in the marketplace, I'm sure the environment will be fine.
sarcasm aside, the free market is great at solving problems when the problem can be solved by a product or financial incentive. (everything will be okay ... if you can afford the solution) But there is a lot more going on in America than supply and demand. The free market does not end wars, or increase civil rights. Quality of Life is
not correlated with the GDP.
Quotethe oppressive beast seems off base to me because without some threat of force, where is the oppression?
Most of the important life decisions I've made are basically about money.
We spend half of our waking hours running after it and the other half spending it.
Money is power, money is freedom. If you have more money, you have more choices, more mobility, and are therefore more free.
The oppression is in the pervasiveness of it. Nearly anything you want to do in this world is mediated by these green biosurvival tickets.
If everybody had a more equal say, the system might be a bit fairer to the chumps on the bottom. But most of the money in this country is controlled by very slim fraction of the population. The rest of us get to eat what scraps trickle down. I don't see what incentive I have to play the game, except that there's no other game in town.
It's like starting a game of monopoly where your opponent already owns 75% of the spaces on the board. "If you play long enough, you can be as rich as I am!" he tells you. "You are free to buy
any of the four spaces I haven't bought yet."
"But I don't even
like monopoly," I say.
"Well it's the only game we have," he says. "If you'd like, you can sit quietly over there until the game is over."
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 23, 2010, 08:07:22 PM
The free market could possibly work if corporations were abolished and the people making the decisions were held directly accountable for their actions instead of this corporate personhood bullshit.
abolishing corporations seems pretty unlikely.
and as it stands, although the individuals are not liable for their actions (in some regard), the corporation is. so why are we dealing with all these problems that corporations cause time and again? it seems to me that it's because their feet aren't being held to the fire like they should be. our enforcers are in their pockets. The corporations are behaving exactly as they were designed to. The govt. isn't. For this reason, i blame the enforcers, as they are the ones that are directly accountable to the public...
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
I think there's a wide gulf between what is philosophically sound and what is practical for large groups of monkeys.
From a philosophical standpoint, it seems to me that any government which doesn't rest on the consent of the governed is simply a bureaucratic slave system. That is, if Cramulus says to me "You must go work in the field and I will have final say over what you keep and what I take, or I will beat you", we call that slavery. The government says "You go work, we have final say over what you keep and what we take, or we'll put you in jail"... that too is slavery. Just because there's a few hundred schmucks in suits, instead of a mustached Cramulus with a taskmasters whip makes no real difference. If I as a human am born "Free", then I should not be compelled to do anything by a legitimate government, unless I choose to enter into an association with that government.
So in that view, I can see the Libertarians point. HOWEVER (and this is a big point), this can only apply to individuals born with the right to their own person and freedom. As soon as we come together and form a corporation or other 'legal' entity we have voluntarily entered into an arrangement with the legal system aka the government. This is where American Libertarianism falls on its face. It seems to expect the government to provide a environment for their Free Market, but not to actually try to interact with it. They want their Cake and Pie and Ice Cream and a deep fried Bald Eagle for the crunchy topping.
A completely Free Market 'could work'... but ONLY in a society where everyone were 100% responsible for their own decisions and actions. What that means is that a Free Market could work, if Ken Lay knew that his stockholders would string him up to the nearest tree without concern for any 'legal repercussions'. MegaCorp Inc. is unlikely to spike the water table with SuperCancer if they know that the people in town will come set them on fire and blow up their house.
But no, the corporations WANT legal protection. They WANT "limited liability". They WANT an 'ordered society'... but they don't want the tool that keeps all that in place (the government) to get in the way of their cash flow.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
My roommate believes that the Free Market is capable of solving all our problems. He thinks we should privatize everything and let supply and demand iron out the wrinkles of modern living.
i agree that is silly. if there were no need for anything public, then why stop there? is he an 'anarchist', as well?
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
Sure, that totally worked for artists, who can now only comment on certain parts of culture for fear of violating some guarded piece of IP.
The Health Care Industry is doing a kick ass job of providing everybody with affordable health care.
And now that there are a ton of "green" products available in the marketplace, I'm sure the environment will be fine.
i can't put much stock in those examples. the first two are not examples of free markets at all, and the third one is simply an example of people buying marketing (to an extent..) and that's what people want (to an extent...)
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
sarcasm aside, the free market is great at solving problems when the problem can be solved by a product or financial incentive. (everything will be okay ... if you can afford the solution) But there is a lot more going on in America than supply and demand. The free market does not end wars, or increase civil rights. Quality of Life is not correlated with the GDP.
agreed. economic freedom does not ensure personal freedom. nor the other way around. but saying that the free market is not magical doesn't indicate that it is not desirable. i don't know if that's what you are saying or not....
also, are you
sure there is no correlation between GDP (per capita) and quality of life?.... perhaps you meant to say it isn't one to one, but i'd be hard pressed to buy that there's
no correlation.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
Quotethe oppressive beast seems off base to me because without some threat of force, where is the oppression?
Most of the important life decisions I've made are basically about money.
We spend half of our waking hours running after it and the other half spending it.
Money is power, money is freedom. If you have more money, you have more choices, more mobility, and are therefore more free.
The oppression is in the pervasiveness of it. Nearly anything you want to do in this world is mediated by these green biosurvival tickets.
That's simply the nature of things. railing against that is pissing in the wind, i believe.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
If everybody had a more equal say, the system might be a bit fairer to the chumps on the bottom. But most of the money in this country is controlled by very slim fraction of the population. The rest of us get to eat what scraps trickle down. I don't see what incentive I have to play the game, except that there's no other game in town.
It's like starting a game of monopoly where your opponent already owns 75% of the spaces on the board. "If you play long enough, you can be as rich as I am!" he tells you. "You are free to buy any of the four spaces I haven't bought yet."
"But I don't even like monopoly," I say.
"Well it's the only game we have," he says. "If you'd like, you can sit quietly over there until the game is over."
Yes! the monetary/financial system is stacked against us by a powerful elite class. That is definitely a topic worth digging into... but that is not the free market either, is it? that's just some rich folks that manipulate the system by controlling threat of force (govt.)
personally, i have not decided how to react to the understanding of that....
If i were in their position, i don't know that i would do any differently. would you?
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
they react only to money.
if the threat to their bottom line is significant, they will alter their behavior.
On the other hand, the idea of Limited Liability is pretty good for economic growth.
I mean, let's say a company has 100 workers, 50 managers, 10 directors, and 1 president, and they are working off a widely held business model. If there is a fundemental flaw in the process or the implementation of the model, or even the philosophy of the model, it seems kind of unfair to hold only one person accountable.
Usually, new companies are started by visionaries with drive and a willingness to accept risk up to a certain level. If they are told they'll be held 100% responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong, regardless of what that error is, they won't take the risk.
Rat, it sounds like, in some ways, you are advocating philosophical anarchism. Which I can live with.
Also, I'm going to split all non-stupid wingnut utterances off into a new thread. Please stand by...
Quote from: LMNO on February 23, 2010, 08:46:48 PM
On the other hand, the idea of Limited Liability is pretty good for economic growth.
I mean, let's say a company has 100 workers, 50 managers, 10 directors, and 1 president, and they are working off a widely held business model. If there is a fundemental flaw in the process or the implementation of the model, or even the philosophy of the model, it seems kind of unfair to hold only one person accountable.
Usually, new companies are started by visionaries with drive and a willingness to accept risk up to a certain level. If they are told they'll be held 100% responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong, regardless of what that error is, they won't take the risk.
Yes they will. That's why they're visionaries!
The "Limited Liability" concept is part of corporate personhood--it means that the corporation is its own person. The investors, who own shares in the company and elect the board of directors, who in turn hire the CEO, who in turn does something perfectly boneheaded and sociopathic face only the loss of the money they paid for the stock. As opposed to, say, holding CEO, board of directors, and everyone who voted in their favor responsible for the Supercancer in the watertable.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
Seize all profits for the length of the sentence. Watch the stock tank when the new quarterly profit predictions say 0.
Also, cap compensation at something that will make the people in charge squirm (100k or so) for the duration.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2010, 08:59:53 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
Seize all profits for the length of the sentence. Watch the stock tank when the new quarterly profit predictions say 0.
Also, cap compensation at something that will make the people in charge squirm (100k or so) for the duration.
And, they can't leave. Freeze sale of the stock and forbid the chief officers from quitting or taking another job.
Garnish profits at eighty percent, though. It's only possible to put corporations on probation, or render them a wing of government.
Quote from: LMNO on February 23, 2010, 08:46:48 PM
On the other hand, the idea of Limited Liability is pretty good for economic growth.
I mean, let's say a company has 100 workers, 50 managers, 10 directors, and 1 president, and they are working off a widely held business model. If there is a fundemental flaw in the process or the implementation of the model, or even the philosophy of the model, it seems kind of unfair to hold only one person accountable.
Usually, new companies are started by visionaries with drive and a willingness to accept risk up to a certain level. If they are told they'll be held 100% responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong, regardless of what that error is, they won't take the risk.
This is correct... and its a great example of why government involvement in corporations can be beneficial. What they need to learn is that IF they voluntarily sign up for 'limited liability' they must also accept 'limited freedom'.
Quote from: Cain on February 23, 2010, 08:48:32 PM
Rat, it sounds like, in some ways, you are advocating philosophical anarchism. Which I can live with.
Discussing more than advocating... ;-)
My views on libertarianism were forever changed by the Non-Euclidian Politics class that RAW taught before he died. Guys like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker make extremely good arguments for 'voluntary association'... but getting to that philosophy with our society seems basically impossible to me. Humans seem rather lazy and short sighted, both attributes which seem bound to throw off the balance required for a truly Free Market or a Free Society.
Its like these spags that geek out over "going Galt". I find the idea of "going Galt" to have some very interesting and attractive qualities, but then I know how to grow my own food, hunt, skin an animal and build a house. This recent upsurge in people that wish to "Go Galt" seem to be missing that necessary foundation. If I were alone in the wilderness, I could survive, assuming that I had the proper tools; but how many of the Tea Party/Libertarian/Galt wannabes can say the same thing? I have no philosophical issue with the so called "selfish" attitude expressed by Libertarian philosophy... if someone doesn't want to contribute to the tribe, I don't think they should be forced to... as long as they don't expect benefits from the tribe either. Itss this important balance that seems to have gone missing in the US summed up in the lines: "Get government out of Medicare" and "No one helped me when I was on Welfare and Food Stamps!"
You can't have both a well governed society AND a society free of government influence.
Now, I do think that 'consent' is necessary for any truly Free nation of people... I do not believe that any current system reflects that concept though. Perhaps it is not currently achievable.
Quote from: EarthBound SpIRiT on February 23, 2010, 05:44:54 AM
At least tell me what's wrong with being a Libertarian... :argh!:
He expressed amusement that you are a fan of Ronald Reagan, who was about the least Libertarian president to date, until lil W got in.
It'd be like an Anarchist admiring Stalin. Because, you know, they're both Communists after all.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
Well, a corporation consists of resources right? I mean, it may be more than that, but if you just put all financial resources, all productive resources, and all human resources of a corporation in jail, the corporation would be in jail right?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2010, 08:41:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
they react only to money.
if the threat to their bottom line is significant, they will alter their behavior.
no. What is the fine for theft? that fine is insignificant to a corporation, what is the fine for murder? Also completely insignificant. unless fines are proportional to assets monetary fines have no reason to motivate a corporation.
They can't without being draconian for a fleshie.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 24, 2010, 10:35:34 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2010, 08:41:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
as soon as you figure out a way to throw a corporation in jail, let me know.
they react only to money.
if the threat to their bottom line is significant, they will alter their behavior.
no. What is the fine for theft? that fine is insignificant to a corporation, what is the fine for murder? Also completely insignificant. unless fines are proportional to assets monetary fines have no reason to motivate a corporation.
They can't without being draconian for a fleshie.
I see no reason that the fines cannot be proportional to assets for a company, however fines are not the only thing i was talking about.
If a drug company has some negligent behavior in the making and peddling of some pharmaceutical, and they are punished by being banned from the sale of that category of pharmaceutical, that would hit them hard. the threat of that type of punitive action
would affect behavior. as it stands they just buy off our elected officials...
alright, let's look at the drug example.
Merck & Co produced a drug called Vioxx. It was one of the most widely proscribed drugs in history. In 2004, some clinical trial data revealed that it increased your risk of heart attack. A bunch of people died. Merck quickly withdrew the drug from the market.
Merck was not acting in the public interest. As early as 2000, they knew that their drug could increase risk of heart attack.
QuoteAccording to internal e-mail traffic released at a later lawsuit, Merck had a list of doctors critical of Vioxx to be "neutralised" or "discredited." "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," wrote an employee. Also alleged were intimidation of researchers and impingement upon academic freedom.
wicked wicked wicked!
So the company got busted doing something wrong. This is the part where the invisible hand of capitalism swoops in and moderates their behavior, right? Nobody will buy merck drugs if they're killing people, no? And certainly the fatalities are going to cost the company a pretty penny... IN THEORY. Well here's what really happened:
Merck announced that it had an enormous amount of money put aside for settlements ($50 billion!). If you had a heart attack while you were on Vioxx, you have to provide evidence, in court, that it was Vioxx which caused this heart attack. So far, only 23 people have been awarded any money, and it's not much money either.
This whole thing has been somewhat of a victory for Merck, who benefited from a lot of PR and managed to salvage their image without spending a lot of money.
And get this, from 2002 to 2005, Merck published an Australian medical journal which LOOKS LIKE a peer reviewed journal, but was really just a commercial targeted at doctors:
QuoteAlthough it gave the appearance of being an independent peer-reviewed journal, without any indication that Merck had paid for it, the journal actually reprinted articles that originally appeared in other publications and that were favorable to Merck. The misleading publication came to light in 2009 during a personal injury lawsuit filed over Vioxx; 9 of 29 articles in the journal's second issue referred positively to Vioxx.
so . . .
Here is a concrete example of a corporation working
purely for its bottom line - exactly what it is programmed to do - at the cost of human life. This is a synecdoche for the larger problem. Attempts to change Merck's behavior by threatening it's financial nervous system
have failed. The free market is
not serving the public interest. If regulation isn't the solution to these problems, what is?
One of the issues here appears to be whether the corrections should be pre- or post- regulated.
It only makes sense that the "Free Market" approach is Reactive: That is, when a company does something bad, and people find out about it, they make choices. The company then adapts, or fails. Bad behavior is eventually punished.
A "Regulation" approach is Proactive: That is, the gvt looks at the potential for bad behavior, and prohibits it. The company adapts, or is penalized. A certain kind of bad behavior is restricted.
The pitfalls of both approaches are many, especially when you take into account the flawed philosophies of captitalism, economics, and politics.
What Merck did is called 'negligent homicide' its not *supposed* to be dealt with by civil courts or the marketplace, its supposed to be dealt with by cops and prosecutors. The same laws that cover organized crime will cover that kind of action, just as soon as the people responsible do their damn job and use them.
Quote from: LMNO on February 24, 2010, 03:40:55 PM
One of the issues here appears to be whether the corrections should be pre- or post- regulated.
It only makes sense that the "Free Market" approach is Reactive: That is, when a company does something bad, and people find out about it, they make choices. The company then adapts, or fails. Bad behavior is eventually punished.
A "Regulation" approach is Proactive: That is, the gvt looks at the potential for bad behavior, and prohibits it. The company adapts, or is penalized. A certain kind of bad behavior is restricted.
The pitfalls of both approaches are many, especially when you take into account the flawed philosophies of captitalism, economics, and politics.
The free market only works if people are able to make informed decisions.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:13:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 24, 2010, 03:40:55 PM
One of the issues here appears to be whether the corrections should be pre- or post- regulated.
It only makes sense that the "Free Market" approach is Reactive: That is, when a company does something bad, and people find out about it, they make choices. The company then adapts, or fails. Bad behavior is eventually punished.
A "Regulation" approach is Proactive: That is, the gvt looks at the potential for bad behavior, and prohibits it. The company adapts, or is penalized. A certain kind of bad behavior is restricted.
The pitfalls of both approaches are many, especially when you take into account the flawed philosophies of captitalism, economics, and politics.
The free market only works if people are willing to make informed decisions.
Amended.
What Requia said....
The free market is serving the public interest as far as production and efficiency goes.
What is not serving the public interest is the govt. Merck conducted criminal behavior, and the govt. should have penalized them proportional to the crime, but they did not. That is not a failure on the part of the market, which is not intended to swoop in with justice. justice is not a product of the market, because it requires a monopoly on force and should be accountable to the public at large.
When corporations are able to manipulate the govt. to avoid penalties for criminal action, that is not the free market at work.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0
FFS.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 04:27:49 PM
What Requia said....
The free market is serving the public interest as far as production and efficiency goes.
What is not serving the public interest is the govt. Merck conducted criminal behavior, and the govt. should have penalized them proportional to the crime, but they did not. That is not a failure on the part of the market, which is not intended to swoop in with justice. justice is not a product of the market, because it requires a monopoly on force and should be accountable to the public at large.
When corporations are able to manipulate the govt. to avoid penalties for criminal action, that is not the free market at work.
There has never been a free market, Iptuous. It's a fantasy, like communism.
There are Free Markets... they're also known as Black Markets... outside of government control and influence. Free Markets gave us Bathtub Gin. Free Markets give us MDMA cut with strychnine. Free Markets give us Child Pornography.
Of course, those same Free Markets saved the collective asses of many poor Appalachians who turned to stills and stock cars for survival.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 04:56:04 PM
There are Free Markets... they're also known as Black Markets...
Until someone murders you for your market share. Or simply forces you to cough up a chunk of your profits.
Gimme yr sammich.
Quote from: LMNO on February 24, 2010, 04:57:48 PM
Gimme yr sammich.
Yep.
Anarchy isn't freedom.
And anyone who thinks that the black market is a free market needs to google "John Torrio", and follow the links to the present day.
iptuous, can you clarify for me---? It sounds like you're in favor of more gov't regulation and control of the free market. Which doesn't sound like something most libertarians would endorse, no?
Quote from: Cain on February 24, 2010, 04:46:22 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0
FFS.
Oh, I REMEMBER that fread. Maybe merge w/this one? Too late, I suppose. It IS a total rehash, however.
Merging the two would be not only amusing, but useful.
Same arguments from same interlocutors, I think.
I apologize for enjoying what must be a boring discussion to some of you.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 24, 2010, 05:18:06 PM
I apologize for enjoying what must be a boring discussion to some of you.
I never get sick of this topic. It flexes my rage gland.
It must just me then who's tired of seeing the same argument, with the same people, making the same points, influencing exactly no-one because all the participants are set in their ways, in thread after thread.
Later then. You all enjoy recycling your posts.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 24, 2010, 05:18:06 PM
I apologize for enjoying what must be a boring discussion to some of you.
I didn't mean to imply anything, sorry. It's not boring, if only because each new discussion of it brings up more points on the original points...like your Merck example (which was awesome, btw).
I just know there was also a very lengthy and protracted discussion earlier in subforum that was actually very much to the point.
But, meh, I've overstayed myself itt. *moving on*
Where were we?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 04:56:04 PM
There are Free Markets... they're also known as Black Markets...
Until someone murders you for your market share. Or simply forces you to cough up a chunk of your profits.
It's still a free market... an entirely Free Market. And as part of that Freedom, your own protection is your own responsibility.
Free doesn't mean Utopia.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 04:56:04 PM
There are Free Markets... they're also known as Black Markets...
Until someone murders you for your market share. Or simply forces you to cough up a chunk of your profits.
It's still a free market... an entirely Free Market. And as part of that Freedom, your own protection is your own responsibility.
Free doesn't mean Utopia.
So, being extorted is a free market?
Okay.
I don't see any advantage whatsoever to this free market, then. I have no urge to live in Somalia.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 05:37:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 04:56:04 PM
There are Free Markets... they're also known as Black Markets...
Until someone murders you for your market share. Or simply forces you to cough up a chunk of your profits.
It's still a free market... an entirely Free Market. And as part of that Freedom, your own protection is your own responsibility.
Free doesn't mean Utopia.
So, being extorted is a free market?
Being protected from Extortion is in fact a control ON the market.
Quote
Okay.
I don't see any advantage whatsoever to this free market, then. I have no urge to live in Somalia.
Controlled markets offer some security and protection in exchange for less Freedom. Black markets, or anarchic markets (like Somalia) provide total freedom and no protection. That was the point of my comment, not that it was desirable, only that 'free markets' exist.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 05:46:44 PM
Controlled markets offer some security and protection in exchange for less Freedom. Black markets, or anarchic markets (like Somalia) provide total freedom and no protection. That was the point of my comment, not that it was desirable, only that 'free markets' exist.
Nonsense. Living in constant fear, and being at the mercy of the strongest isn't freedom, it's a nightmarish version of feudalism.
Where is it written that freedom isn't frightening? There's no security blanket in freedom.
Quote from: Hoopla on February 24, 2010, 05:56:01 PM
Where is it written that freedom isn't frightening?
Of course it is (frightening). So are other things.
But "unofficial" feudalism is not freedom. It's frightening, too, but has none of the advantages of freedom.
Fact: Put 99% of anarchists/minarchists in the world they think they want, and they'll start setting up a government the moment they look around them. Or they'll just become slaves.
Fact: 99% of anarchists/minarchists think they're the 1% that will thrive in that situation.
Good point.
Quote from: Hoopla on February 24, 2010, 05:58:53 PM
Good point.
Semi-related true story: When I was just a little girl, some skinny stoner was ranting at me at a party that the strong should be able to take what they want, by virtue of being strong. I thought about this for a moment and, having a head full of rum and annoyance at his shrill shit, punched his lights out and took his cigarettes.
How free was he? Did he have the fruits of his labor, or did I?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
There has never been a free market, Iptuous. It's a fantasy, like communism.
So is world peace. should we not aim for it though?
Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market. extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt.
should crack down on that. that doesn't make the market less free...
further, i would say that using the black markets as an example of an existing free market is unfortunate, because there could be a free market that is in the light of day where the protection of govt. against fraud and extortion and shit is available, but it's just not set up that way...
Also i would point out to Cain, if he is fibbing about not following this thread anymore, that i
have in fact incrementally changed my political and economic views over the past couple years that i have been here, and it is in part due to these rehashed and same-old, same-old threads....
so, i'm glad
some people are willing to stick it out on a topic that i find interesting...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:01:55 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on February 24, 2010, 05:58:53 PM
Good point.
Semi-related true story: When I was just a little girl, some skinny stoner was ranting at me at a party that the strong should be able to take what they want, by virtue of being strong. I thought about this for a moment and, having a head full of rum and annoyance at his shrill shit, punched his lights out and took his cigarettes.
How free was he? Did he have the fruits of his labor, or did I?
Sounds like the satanic philosophy...
My view would be that in that situation he was still free. Free doesn't mean safe.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 05:46:44 PM
Controlled markets offer some security and protection in exchange for less Freedom. Black markets, or anarchic markets (like Somalia) provide total freedom and no protection. That was the point of my comment, not that it was desirable, only that 'free markets' exist.
Nonsense. Living in constant fear, and being at the mercy of the strongest isn't freedom, it's a nightmarish version of feudalism.
Why do you think that total freedom would be a positive thing? I'm not arguing that its a utopia... only that its a Free Market with no government controls (for or against the 'capitalist'). If a Capitalist wants to do business with no laws governing the business... then that means no laws... either for good or ill. However, very few capitalists would actually WANT a totally free market (no matter what they might whine about on Faux News or while licking their copy of Atlas Shrugged). Most Capitalists/Investors/Businesses WANT legal protection for themselves and thus its only fair that the market includes legal protection for their clients/customers. That's the core of the issue with Libertarian thought IMO.
Now, from a philosophical standpoint, a truly free nation of people would have a voluntary choice of markets, but that choice would come with consequences.
So in my fantasy world example here... we would have two markets in the US, one market regulated by the social system in place (aka government) and a 'Free Market' which is unregulated AND unprotected by the social system. A business wouldn't be FORCED to follow the socially agreed upon rules, but they would not have the benefits of the socially agreed upon rules.
If you are in the regulated market and Guido tries to strong arm you, you have cops, the SEC, the Justice Dept etc to help you. If you're in a Free Market and Guido tries to strong arm you, you better have a stronger arm than Guido.
I (and I think most people) would prefer regulated protection in exchange for regulated freedom.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
There has never been a free market, Iptuous. It's a fantasy, like communism.
So is world peace. should we not aim for it though?
For which? Communism?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market. extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt. should crack down on that. that doesn't make the market less free...
Yep. You can't have freedom without laws, and laws mean regulation.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:13:30 PM
Why do you think that total freedom would be a positive thing?
At what point did I say that? What I said was that anarchic systems instantly devolve into feudalism, because that's how humans are wired.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:17:55 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
There has never been a free market, Iptuous. It's a fantasy, like communism.
So is world peace. should we not aim for it though?
For which? Communism?
exactly.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:17:55 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market. extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt. should crack down on that. that doesn't make the market less free...
Yep. You can't have freedom without laws, and laws mean regulation.
i agree.
no wait.
i don't agree.
i would stop at, 'You can't have freedom.'
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:17:55 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
There has never been a free market, Iptuous. It's a fantasy, like communism.
So is world peace. should we not aim for it though?
For which? Communism?
exactly.
Go for it. However, primates being what they are, you might want to bring an extra lance for those windmills.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:17:55 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market. extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt. should crack down on that. that doesn't make the market less free...
Yep. You can't have freedom without laws, and laws mean regulation.
i agree.
no wait.
i don't agree.
i would stop at, 'You can't have freedom.'
Only if you have a "perfect" freedom in mind. The fact that we can have this conversation argues that we're free, at least to some extent.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:20:33 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:13:30 PM
Why do you think that total freedom would be a positive thing?
At what point did I say that? What I said was that anarchic systems instantly devolve into feudalism, because that's how humans are wired.
I'm not sure how that disagrees with anything I've said. "Total Freedom" means that the strong will rule. It's neither fair to everyone or advantageous to everyone... it is, however, free of government control.
How does such a feudal system work?
Guido and his boys have the most guns and the strongest arm, so they start riding roughshot over the other 10 companies that are in our 'free market' story. They are acting freely AND the 10 companies FREELY chose to play in the market with no protection. everyone has made their choice and gets to live with the consequences. Now, Company #4 happens to come up with a great plan and takes Guido and his top 10 enforcers out in a Valentines Day style massacre. Guido and company freely involved themselves in the unregulated market, Company #4 also freely chose to be in the unregulated market and life goes on.
So now Company #4 decides to play Kingmaker.... and they rule the roost until Company #9 pulls off a beautiful Con and wipes out all their holdings. Company #4 no longer has any funds to pay their thugs and they lose power.
All of that is "Free" of government involvement, which is the only kind of "Free" involved in the libertarian concept of "Free Markets".
As for having "Freedom", its entirely possible. It simply requires CHOICE.
If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:33:07 PM
If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.
So what happens when the bullets flying from your unregulated market kill people in my regulated market.
And you already have that choice. There are dozens of countries with systems just like you describe...and we all have the freedom to move to one of them if we choose. And your bullets won't hit my customers.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:36:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:33:07 PM
If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.
So what happens when the bullets flying from your unregulated market kill people in my regulated market.
Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back. Again, I'm not making any comments about how a Free Market would be better for us, or how it would mean less death or less pain and suffering for people... only that it would be Free.
Quote
And you already have that choice. There are dozens of countries with systems just like you describe...and we all have the freedom to move to one of them if we choose. And your bullets won't hit my customers.
Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:43:10 PM
Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back.
So, basically, we all get sucked into the minarchist system.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:43:10 PM
Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.
That would be the case if the government in question prevented you from leaving.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:43:10 PM
Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back.
So, basically, we all get sucked into the minarchist system.
We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.
Quote
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 06:43:10 PM
Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.
That would be the case if the government in question prevented you from leaving.
Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force... putting to bed the long held view (since the inception of the Republic) that this was a government that rested on consent and voluntary association. As he also points out in his essay "Constitutional Law, Relative to Credit, Currency and Banking" the laws in place in the US on things like private banking, private currency etc are also restrictions of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms since article 1, Section 10 declares that "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 07:08:55 PM
We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.
Only if there's no difference between "bad" and "worse".
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 07:08:55 PM
Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force...
And he was right (That was a brilliant essay, btw, and I foist it off on "reformers" every chance I get.)
But that doesn't mean that you, the individual, are not free to choose the political system of your choice and relocate to it.
It's more reasonable than demanding the logistical nightmare of having two different systems in the same society. Fuck, we can't even arrange charter schools alongside public schools without fucking it up.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 07:08:55 PM
We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.
Only if there's no difference between "bad" and "worse".
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2010, 07:08:55 PM
Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force...
And he was right (That was a brilliant essay, btw, and I foist it off on "reformers" every chance I get.)
But that doesn't mean that you, the individual, are not free to choose the political system of your choice and relocate to it.
It's more reasonable than demanding the logistical nightmare of having two different systems in the same society. Fuck, we can't even arrange charter schools alongside public schools without fucking it up.
Hrmmm, missed theis reply, sorry Dok!
Spooner's argument applies to individual citizens under the US Constitution, this is pretty clear in his 'No Treason' essay (he has a series of them under that label) that focuses on Taxation and Voting:
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64 (http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64)
So, recently I just learned about something called Multi-Level Selection Theory (MLS). Essentially, in transmutation by natural selection, selection acts upon many different nested levels, and NOT just the individual. In the past, group level selection has been so villanized that people would have to be appologetic and make it clear they weren't discussing it.
However, with the advent of Sociobiology, this theory of essentially matryoshki dolls has been tested repeatedly in the laboratory and observed in the field. Group level selection often trumps individual level selection when groups are competing against each other.
Now, humans are a social species, composed of "tribes" or "societies" which compete against one another for resources.
Quote from: Wilson and Wilson (2008) Evolution "for the good of the group"Converging lines of evidence suggest that the key difference between human ancestors and other primate species was the suppression of finess differences within groups, concentrating selection at the group level. Hunter gather societies arefiercely egalitarian. Meat is scrupulously shared; aspiring alpha males are put in their place; and self-serving behaviors are censured. Unable to succeed at each othere's expense, members of hunter-gatherer groups succeed primarily by teamwork.
Selection for teamwork probably began very early in human evolution. Human infants spontaneously point things out to others, and not merely to get what they want, which chimpanzees do not do at any age. Symbolic thought, language and the social transmission of information are fundamentally communal activities that rely on trustworthy social partners. Exploitation, cheating, and free riding do exist in human groups, but what is most remarkable is the degree to which they are suppressed. They loom so large in our thoughts partly be cause we are primed to suppress them, like a well adapted immune system.
Teamwork enabled our ancestors to spread throughout Africa and beyond, replacing all other hominid species along the way. While we remained a single biological species, we diversified culturally to occupy hundreds of ecological niches, harvesting of everything from seeds to whales. The invention of agriculture added new layers to the biological hierarchy. We now live in groups of groups of groups.
When we confront the panorama of human genetic and cultural evolution, are we permitted to think about adaptations as being "for the good of the group:? As soon as we employ the Russian-doll logic of MLS theory, the answer becomes unambiguously yes. The idea that within-group selection [ed: selection at the individual level] invariably trumps between group selection is as absurd for ourselves as it is for the eusocial insects.
Emphasis mine.
In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.
There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.
If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.
Kai,
group level selection has been villainized heretofore in biology? i knew there was controversy, but i didn't know that it was widely dismissed? what was the reasoning for this dismissal?
also, i would agree with everything you said, however i get the impression that you think everyone that has 'libertarian' views of governance have every man for themselves type views on personal interactions.... This is obviously the case for some, but certainly not for all, and i would argue based on my exposure that it is not the case for the majority by a long shot....
one can still be very generous personally while maintaining that the govt. is not the place for social cohesiveness and cooperation to be enforced. why can't it simply be embedded in the culture for these traits to be enforced? and if the culture does not largely embrace those traits, why would governance work in enforcing it? wouldn't the population simply subvert the spirit of the law and use the good intentions for corrupt purposes? isn't this, in fact, what we see? and don't we see people abandoning voluntary cohesiveness and cooperation with the notion that 'its already forced, why should i sacrifice doubly?'
just thinking out loud here...
also, when you say "If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style" I'm not sure whether you intend to lend any credibility to that notion. (it seems to come across that way....)
Quote from: Iptuous on February 27, 2010, 05:54:44 PM
Kai,
group level selection has been villainized heretofore in biology? i knew there was controversy, but i didn't know that it was widely dismissed? what was the reasoning for this dismissal?
also, i would agree with everything you said, however i get the impression that you think everyone that has 'libertarian' views of governance have every man for themselves type views on personal interactions.... This is obviously the case for some, but certainly not for all, and i would argue based on my exposure that it is not the case for the majority by a long shot....
one can still be very generous personally while maintaining that the govt. is not the place for social cohesiveness and cooperation to be enforced. why can't it simply be embedded in the culture for these traits to be enforced? and if the culture does not largely embrace those traits, why would governance work in enforcing it? wouldn't the population simply subvert the spirit of the law and use the good intentions for corrupt purposes? isn't this, in fact, what we see? and don't we see people abandoning voluntary cohesiveness and cooperation with the notion that 'its already forced, why should i sacrifice doubly?'
just thinking out loud here...
also, when you say "If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style" I'm not sure whether you intend to lend any credibility to that notion. (it seems to come across that way....)
1)In the seventies, you were an outcast if you even mentioned group selection. EO Wilson largely changed that. The reason for the initial dismissal was the naivety of many ideas that were based on "for the good of the group" back then, especially the book
Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior by Wynne-Edwards.
2) Then the culture becomes the government. This is known as a self policing society. Unfortunately, we have no unifying honor code in this society, and we are definitely not self policing, so a government is necessary. Contrast that with scientific society, which is largely self policying and doesn't require a particular governing body.
3) As for your last point, this is why the US will fail. And goodly so, because this sort of culture of cheating doesn't work.
4) And to your last statement, I think you're just arguing because you don't want to accept that living in a socialist society (ie an egalitarian one where the members all cooperate) is better than this pile of shit we have right now.
And yes, I think the libertarian view of governance has "every man for themselves" and I have no evidence to expect otherwise, since every libertarian I've ever met has been like that.
Right now I'm getting fucking pissed.
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2010, 05:14:08 PM
[snip]
In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.
There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.
If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.
Human nature . . . not nature red in tooth and claw, but treating people with fucking respect
Thanks for pointing this out Kai, :mittens:
and Iptous did I hear that right . . . are you really saying "why can't we just all be nice to one another" ?
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2010, 06:11:30 PM
...snip...
Right now I'm getting fucking pissed.
Then i'll bow out... :)
Quote from: MMIX on February 27, 2010, 06:13:24 PM
and Iptous did I hear that right . . . are you really saying "why can't we just all be nice to one another" ?
no. i don't entertain any notions that people will 'just all be nice to one another'.... ever. some will be nice to some, and some will be dicks to some. and that's the way it is.
i also don't entertain the notion that governance, which boils down to violence, will be able to force that, either.
i believe that if it is attempted to be enforced (which i consider to be poor behavior in itself), it will only lead to subversion of the system, resentment, and corruption.
I think libertarianism would be very nice. Somewhere else.
Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I think libertarianism would be very nice. Somewhere else.
Yes, this.
Somewhere close enough that we can point and laugh, but far enough away that we don't get any on us.
Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I think libertarianism would be very nice. Somewhere else.
How about Somalia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
Quote from: Jason Wabash on February 28, 2010, 05:04:21 AM
Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I think libertarianism would be very nice. Somewhere else.
How about Somalia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
:lulz:
I agree with Iptuous.
Government uses violence.
Violence is bad.
Humans react to violence by either joining the ones doing the violating or corrupting the fuck out of everything.
Bipeds are ornery gits.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.
Okay.
Violence is hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.
Okay.
woah woah woah i think i haven't made myself clear.
violence is bad, but receiving violence is worse. on account of you or yours getting hurt.
Let's say violence gets you 10 evil points and letting loved ones get hurt gets you 10 violence points, so letting someone use violence against loved ones gives you a 20 point increase in evil while killing the meanies only gives a 10 point increase.
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.
Okay.
woah woah woah i think i haven't made myself clear.
violence is bad, but receiving violence is worse. on account of you or yours getting hurt.
Let's say violence gets you 10 evil points and letting loved ones get hurt gets you 10 violence points, so letting someone use violence against loved ones gives you a 20 point increase in evil while killing the meanies only gives a 10 point increase.
I don't see how the last case gives you any increase.
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.
Okay.
woah woah woah i think i haven't made myself clear.
violence is bad, but receiving violence is worse. on account of you or yours getting hurt.
Let's say violence gets you 10 evil points and letting loved ones get hurt gets you 10 violence points, so letting someone use violence against loved ones gives you a 20 point increase in evil while killing the meanies only gives a 10 point increase.
"evil points"?
:lol:
aside from "evil" being a completely subjective term generally misused to mean "counter to my personal interests", that's a great concept.
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 01, 2010, 05:39:00 AM
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
I'm guessing evil points express a facet of Bayes theorem.
It's ethical to do what you think is right, yes? (Moreover to do your honest best to know what is right...) Evil points help determine it, though you're looking for "do right" as "do least evil".
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 01, 2010, 05:39:00 AM
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
Like if it were a competition?
I can get behind that.
Quote from: Template on March 01, 2010, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 01, 2010, 05:39:00 AM
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
I'm guessing evil points express a facet of Bayes theorem.
It's ethical to do what you think is right, yes? (Moreover to do your honest best to know what is right...) Evil points help determine it, though you're looking for "do right" as "do least evil".
That's not Bayes, but a sort of utilitarianism.
Bayes is to do with statistics and probability, not ethics.
:alevil:
Liek this?
also, the words "i agree with Iptuous" made me feel extremely awkward in the context of this board....
:lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 12:07:41 AM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Violence is bad.
Unproven assertion.
It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey. <- only unproven assertion.
So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.
Okay.
woah woah woah i think i haven't made myself clear.
violence is bad, but receiving violence is worse. on account of you or yours getting hurt.
Let's say violence gets you 10 evil points and letting loved ones get hurt gets you 10 violence points, so letting someone use violence against loved ones gives you a 20 point increase in evil while killing the meanies only gives a 10 point increase.
I don't see how the last case gives you any increase.
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
I can get behind that. it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2010, 05:14:08 PM
So, recently I just learned about something called Multi-Level Selection Theory (MLS). Essentially, in transmutation by natural selection, selection acts upon many different nested levels, and NOT just the individual. In the past, group level selection has been so villanized that people would have to be appologetic and make it clear they weren't discussing it.
However, with the advent of Sociobiology, this theory of essentially matryoshki dolls has been tested repeatedly in the laboratory and observed in the field. Group level selection often trumps individual level selection when groups are competing against each other.
Now, humans are a social species, composed of "tribes" or "societies" which compete against one another for resources.
Quote from: Wilson and Wilson (2008) Evolution "for the good of the group"Converging lines of evidence suggest that the key difference between human ancestors and other primate species was the suppression of finess differences within groups, concentrating selection at the group level. Hunter gather societies arefiercely egalitarian. Meat is scrupulously shared; aspiring alpha males are put in their place; and self-serving behaviors are censured. Unable to succeed at each othere's expense, members of hunter-gatherer groups succeed primarily by teamwork.
Selection for teamwork probably began very early in human evolution. Human infants spontaneously point things out to others, and not merely to get what they want, which chimpanzees do not do at any age. Symbolic thought, language and the social transmission of information are fundamentally communal activities that rely on trustworthy social partners. Exploitation, cheating, and free riding do exist in human groups, but what is most remarkable is the degree to which they are suppressed. They loom so large in our thoughts partly be cause we are primed to suppress them, like a well adapted immune system.
Teamwork enabled our ancestors to spread throughout Africa and beyond, replacing all other hominid species along the way. While we remained a single biological species, we diversified culturally to occupy hundreds of ecological niches, harvesting of everything from seeds to whales. The invention of agriculture added new layers to the biological hierarchy. We now live in groups of groups of groups.
When we confront the panorama of human genetic and cultural evolution, are we permitted to think about adaptations as being "for the good of the group:? As soon as we employ the Russian-doll logic of MLS theory, the answer becomes unambiguously yes. The idea that within-group selection [ed: selection at the individual level] invariably trumps between group selection is as absurd for ourselves as it is for the eusocial insects.
Emphasis mine.
In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.
There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.
If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.
I think there's a bit of confusion here about 'libertarian' views on society.
Libertarian philosophy, like various anarchy philosophies doesn't claim, recommend or require "Every Man For Himself". That is what stupid monkeys claim when they watch too much Faux Noose and think that Libertarian is a cool word. The core argument of Libertarian and Anarchy philosophies is NOT
Humans should not be social, but rather
humans should not be forced to behave socially without making the choice for themselves.
Libertarian philosophy at its core says that the Government should be responsible for National Defense, Interstate Commerce and Constitutional Law. Everything else should be up to the discretion of the individual. However, most libertarian philosophy promotes the concept of helping your society, they just want it to be voluntary so that they only help those that they want to help.
Various anarchy systems like anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndaclism, not only reject the concept of compulsory government entirely, but also the concepts of capitalism, property ownership and other concepts that are considered restrictive to freedom. If any of these systems were implemented they would act to support the social group... but it would do so out of a sense of working together for survival, rather than being forced to fork over a percentage of income to a government that will do things with the money that the individual may not support (like paying for Missile Defense Systems, or Blackwater Goons).
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 01:47:00 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
I can get behind that. it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.
Jesus. What a dismal world view.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 01:47:00 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
I can get behind that. it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.
Jesus. What a dismal world view.
meh. it only seems dismal from your pov.... i consider myself quite an optimist and am generally happy, actually.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 01, 2010, 07:49:52 AM
Quote from: Template on March 01, 2010, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 01, 2010, 05:39:00 AM
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
I'm guessing evil points express a facet of Bayes theorem.
It's ethical to do what you think is right, yes? (Moreover to do your honest best to know what is right...) Evil points help determine it, though you're looking for "do right" as "do least evil".
That's not Bayes, but a sort of utilitarianism.
Bayes is to do with statistics and probability, not ethics.
OK, then...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_matrix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-matrix_method
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
a lack of belief in social constructs like good and evil =/= nihilism
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
a lack of belief in social constructs like good and evil =/= nihilism
Oh? Then what does?
are you asking me what nihilism is?
It sounds like Regret is saying he doesn't believe in absolute truths. He says that he believes in evilness as a concept, and that people can be evil to a certain extent. That sounds different from nihilism, which suggests we should throw out all meaning.
I know that doesn't translate into Roger Prime very well. :p
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
I think he's more saying that Hitler was nice to his dogs.
Quote from: Jason Wabash on March 01, 2010, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
I think he's more saying that Hitler was nice to his dogs.
Which makes up for a few million murdered. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Hitler's behavior towards his dogs was irrelevant.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:18:57 PM
are you asking me what nihilism is?
It sounds like Regret is saying he doesn't believe in absolute truths. He says that he believes in evilness as a concept, and that people can be evil to a certain extent. That sounds different from nihilism, which suggests we should throw out all meaning.
I know that doesn't translate into Roger Prime very well. :p
"If you can't explain it to a doped up Roger, you don't understand it."
- Albert Einstein.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:05:42 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on March 01, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.
So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.
And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.
Nihilism. Gotcha.
a lack of belief in social constructs like good and evil =/= nihilism
Oh? Then what does?
"The Nazis" weren't "bad guys" they were just guys, many of whom acted in ways that our society considers unacceptable (justifiably so, in my opinion). Many people in the Nazi Party joined only because they had the choice of Join or Die. Some of the soldiers and officers (many by the end of the war) were conscripted into their position and had little or no choice. To say "Nazi's Are Bad" is to make a broad and generic statement about a whole host of individuals, some of whom did bad things, some of whom did not do bad things (or at least no worse than any other schmuck drafted into an army.
I dunno much about St. Francis, but Mother Theresa and Ghandi weren't always "Good" and I doubt St Francis was good all the time, he was, after all, still a monkey.
Nihilism is a rejection of any and all meaning. Regret just seems to be rejecting moral absolutes.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
"The Nazis" weren't "bad guys" they were just guys, many of whom acted in ways that our society considers unacceptable (justifiably so, in my opinion).
They did so justifiably? What?Whoops. Read that wrong. Still, evil things are done by evil people, if they're being done consistently.
A Nazi upholds evil as a virtue. By definition, a Nazi is an evil person.
perhaps it is a matter of the definition of evil. Since evil only makes sense in the context of actions, then applying it to an action is a simple matter. murder in cold blood is evil. pretty simple.
applying it to the actor is different. does the actor have to pass some certain amount of evil actions in order to be evil themselves? does committing one act on a blacklist do it?
perhaps you can sidestep that entire issue by saying that only the actions are evil...
that's the way i take it....
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
"The Nazis" weren't "bad guys" they were just guys, many of whom acted in ways that our society considers unacceptable (justifiably so, in my opinion).
They did so justifiably? What?
It is justifiable to consider the actions of Nazis unacceptable, even if they were "just guys".
Rat, please to start posting in "LMNO DUMSPEAK®". It's the only way I can make sense of your posts.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:35:11 PM
applying it to the actor is different. does the actor have to pass some certain amount of evil actions in order to be evil themselves? does committing one act on a blacklist do it?
perhaps you can sidestep that entire issue by saying that only the actions are evil...
that's the way i take it....
So Klaus Barbie was just some schmoe doing his job.
Likewise, Martin Bormann was just this guy, you know?
on this topic, I'd recommend the book
Ordinary Men, which talks about the social conditioning used to turn regular police officers (in many cases, people who refused to serve in the army because they were against the war) into SS soldiers.
http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
some amazon reviews:
QuoteShocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler.
QuoteThe book argues that the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101, and other units like it, were comprised of ordinary men. It begs the question: How did ordinary men become the cold-blooded killers of the Holocaust?
Author Christopher R. Browning does a tremendous job of covering the ground. He also presents a strong case that these people were indeed ordinary men, who came from ordinary backgrounds, only to end up being transformed into the murderers of thousands. However, the book also stresses that some of the men, including several officers, could not be considered "ordinary," as they were trained in Hitler's Nazi organizations from youth. Browning also does something nearly impossible: He humanizes these people without excusing their horrendous actions. Their defense that "they were just following orders" just doesn't fit the bill, as some refused to take part in the actions, and asked to be relieved. If a few men could get themselves relieved from doing the killings, why did so many more not? That is the main question the book gives.
"Ordinary Men" is an extraordinary book that chronicles just one unit that took part in the murder of innocent Jews, while also presenting a good case of how ordinary men can become killers.
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
"The Nazis" weren't "bad guys" they were just guys, many of whom acted in ways that our society considers unacceptable (justifiably so, in my opinion).
They did so justifiably? What?
It is justifiable to consider the actions of Nazis unacceptable, even if they were "just guys".
Rat, please to start posting in "LMNO DUMSPEAK®". It's the only way I can make sense of your posts.
We need to stop punishing criminals. They're not bad people, you know. A child molester isn't bad, but the things he does are. Ergo, he's a victim, just like the children he fucks and murders.
AMIDOINGITRITE?
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:38:29 PM
on this topic, I'd recommend the book Ordinary Men, which talks about the social conditioning used to turn regular police officers (in many cases, people who refused to serve in the army because they were against the war) into SS soldiers.
While there is no doubt that ordinary people were swept along by events, what about Himmler? Hess? Goebbels?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
So Klaus Barbie was just some schmoe doing his job.
Likewise, Martin Bormann was just this guy, you know?
No. they were just these guys, doing horrible shit. (in the view that i stated)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:39:26 PM
We need to stop punishing criminals. They're not bad people, you know. A child molester isn't bad, but the things he does are. Ergo, he's a victim, just like the children he fucks and murders.
AMIDOINGITRITE?
who said anything about not punishing people?
lets bring it down to a less sensational level.
I punish my kiddos when they do bad shit. they are not bad kids, but sometimes the do something bad and i punish them for the act.
who said somebody is a victim if they do something evil?
nobody. that's who.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
So Klaus Barbie was just some schmoe doing his job.
Likewise, Martin Bormann was just this guy, you know?
No. they were just these guys, doing horrible shit. (in the view that i stated)
Which is what I said. Their jobs were horrible shit. But they're just guys.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:39:26 PM
We need to stop punishing criminals. They're not bad people, you know. A child molester isn't bad, but the things he does are. Ergo, he's a victim, just like the children he fucks and murders.
AMIDOINGITRITE?
who said anything about not punishing people?
lets bring it down to a less sensational level.
I punish my kiddos when they do bad shit. they are not bad kids, but sometimes the do something bad and i punish them for the act.
who said somebody is a victim if they do something evil?
nobody. that's who.
The world is full of sensational things.
Is a child molester responsible for his acts? If he is, and he does something that vile anyway, then he's evil. Period.
Do you think the 4,392 Catholic priests accused child molestation have ever done anything good?
or are their charity donations and community outreach efforts meaningless because of a single act of evil?
what about the ancient greeks? it was common in that culture for adult men to take on young boys to mentor, which included sex. Were all the ancient greeks evil?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:46:03 PM
No. they were just these guys, doing horrible shit. (in the view that i stated)
Which is what I said. Their jobs were horrible shit. But they're just guys.
Correct. the actions and the actors would be separated in this view, so as to avoid the ambiguities and complications that arise from saying that the actor themselves are evil.
(btw, i'm playing the devil's advocate in this conversation. )
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:39:26 PM
We need to stop punishing criminals. They're not bad people, you know. A child molester isn't bad, but the things he does are. Ergo, he's a victim, just like the children he fucks and murders.
AMIDOINGITRITE?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:46:03 PM
who said anything about not punishing people?
lets bring it down to a less sensational level.
I punish my kiddos when they do bad shit. they are not bad kids, but sometimes the do something bad and i punish them for the act.
who said somebody is a victim if they do something evil?
nobody. that's who.
The world is full of sensational things.
Is a child molester responsible for his acts? If he is, and he does something that vile anyway, then he's evil. Period.
you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor. that's perfectly understandable (and i generally happen to see things that way) but there is another way of looking at it that Regret put out there that avoids some awkwardness....
that's all...
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:55:03 PM
Do you think the 4,392 Catholic priests accused child molestation have ever done anything good?
or are their charity donations and community outreach efforts meaningless because of a single act of evil?
If they're guilty, then yes, their good acts are irrelevant...and it's not a single act.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
"The Nazis" weren't "bad guys" they were just guys, many of whom acted in ways that our society considers unacceptable (justifiably so, in my opinion).
They did so justifiably? What?
Whoops. Read that wrong. Still, evil things are done by evil people, if they're being done consistently.
A Nazi upholds evil as a virtue. By definition, a Nazi is an evil person.
Evil things are done by people. People we consider "Good" can do acts we consider "Evil".
As for punishment, that seems like a different issue than the question of objective Evil.
People should reap the consequences of their actions. If you kill someone and the society you live in thinks they should kill you back, then there ya go. If you kill someone and the society you live in thinks they should stick you in a small room and never let you out, then there ya go.
If you have sex with a child and the society you live in says you should A) Go to Jail, B) Get your nads ripped off, or C) Give you two some privacy... then you'll be punished (or not) based on that societies social rules.
If Bob does 1000 good things, but kills George in a fit of passion... he should still be punished according to the rules of the society he is in. However, I would argue that the one act did not make him Evil.
Some members of the Nazi party in Germany committed horrible, inexcusable acts against other humans. Other members of the Nazi party were just schmoes that got stuck in the gears of a fucked up machine. I see a difference between:
"Nazi's are evil" and "The Nazi philosophy of Aryan supremacy and denigration of other races led to horrific acts which should never be tolerated". Remember, the vast majority of "Nazi's" during WWII were just kids on the front line. Monsters like Barbie, Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels and Adolph were a tiny minority of the "Nazi's" even if we include the horrific acts of prison guards and the SS it's still a small fraction of all the Nazi's during the war.
Besides, from reading about guys like Hitler and Goebbels, they were evil even without the Nazi philosophy... They could have believed in the Magic Candy Mountain and still found an excuse to kill people indiscriminately.
Though, had their movement been a few thousand years earlier, it would have been considered normal, par for the course and not necessarily 'Evil'. Other powerful nations committed genocide on mass levels and got their thrills on torture and suffering of the enemy. The Nazi's biggest flaw was pulling that shit once it was no longer socially acceptable.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor.
Evil isn't a resource, like oil, that lays around waiting to get used, or that gets used up.
It's the behavior exhibited by evil men.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor.
Evil isn't a resource, like oil, that lays around waiting to get used, or that gets used up.
It's the behavior exhibited by evil men.
is a man evil before he commits the act?
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:01:44 PM
If Bob does 1000 good things, but kills George in a fit of passion... he should still be punished according to the rules of the society he is in. However, I would argue that the one act did not make him Evil.
No, because he was operating under diminished capacity.
Now, if Bob does 1000 good things, but kills George for personal gain, then Bob is an evil person.
Unless it's "Bob", in which case he probably killed George the day before George was going to go nuts and massacre everyone at his job. Not that "Bob" would know this, of course, it's just how things would work out.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:03:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor.
Evil isn't a resource, like oil, that lays around waiting to get used, or that gets used up.
It's the behavior exhibited by evil men.
is a man evil before he commits the act?
Obviously. For how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.
See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act? well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'? well, depends.... who knows?
see, i agree with you that there are evil people. you can point to some extreme like hitler, and say 'thars an evil summbitch!', and you'd be right.
but if you go down that road as your only way of looking at it, then in less sensational contexts, it becomes..... messy. and unsatisfying.
so in the way that Regret put forward, you can divorce the act from the actor, and it's clean. it works.
then you run into something sensational like hitler, and its.... weak. and unsatisfying.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act? well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'? well, depends.... who knows?
That's not what I said.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:55:03 PM
Do you think the 4,392 Catholic priests accused child molestation have ever done anything good?
or are their charity donations and community outreach efforts meaningless because of a single act of evil?
If they're guilty, then yes, their good acts are irrelevant...and it's not a single act.
59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.
I have trouble believing that if one of these guys helped me out in some way, I should consider that irrelevant because he touched a boy.
Just like I have trouble believing that if you're a paragon of goodness, you are incapable of doing shitty, evil things once in a while. I mean, even Martin Luther King Jr cheated on his wife.
and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:11:59 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act? well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'? well, depends.... who knows?
That's not what I said.
no it's what i said.
you said
QuoteFor how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.
so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil? intention isn't clean cut in time.... that's messy.
and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'? you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity? that seems very generous of you. does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil? like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity? can a plain stupid person be evil? an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:15:16 PM
59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.
Yes, but there are other serious things that I hold members of the Catholic clergy accountable for. Like promulgating overpopulation, for example.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:15:16 PM
and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?
I consider that part of their culture to be evil, in the same way that I consider slavery to be an evil portion of our own history.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:11:59 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act? well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'? well, depends.... who knows?
That's not what I said.
no it's what i said.
you saidQuoteFor how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.
so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil? intention isn't clean cut in time.... that's messy.
and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'? you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity? that seems very generous of you. does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil? like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity? can a plain stupid person be evil? an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.
Not as messy as insisting that there can be no evil people.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:20:33 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:15:16 PM
59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.
Yes, but there are other serious things that I hold members of the Catholic clergy accountable for. Like promulgating overpopulation, for example.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:15:16 PM
and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?
I consider that part of their culture to be evil, in the same way that I consider slavery to be an evil portion of our own history.
Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums. They thought it was normal, the boys thought it was normal and they were all very proud of not being EVIL and cheating on their wives.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.
What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?
they thought that love between a man and a woman was "earthly", something useful for procreation.
they thought that the love between a man and a boy was "heavenly", something mystical and beautiful.
butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.
What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?
No they usually did it as an act of pederasty. They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:31:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.
What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?
No they usually did it as an act of pederasty. They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.
Well, then, I am not qualified to render a judgment on this specific example, as the culture is too alien for me to consider.
Now, do you consider it a good act to hang a 16 year old girl from a crane for talking to a boy? Do you consider the judge that passed that sentence down to be good or evil?
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:30:49 PM
butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You
really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:21:30 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:11:59 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act? well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'? well, depends.... who knows?
That's not what I said.
no it's what i said.
you saidQuoteFor how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.
so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil? intention isn't clean cut in time.... that's messy.
and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'? you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity? that seems very generous of you. does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil? like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity? can a plain stupid person be evil? an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.
Not as messy as insisting that there can be no evil people.
No. insisting that there are no evil people is
unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Insisting that the acts a person commits determines if they are evil is
messy, even though it can sure be satisfying...
insisting that there is only one way of looking at it is.... simple. but limiting.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:35:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:31:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.
What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?
No they usually did it as an act of pederasty. They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.
Well, then, I am not qualified to render a judgment on this specific example, as the culture is too alien for me to consider.
Now, do you consider it a good act to hang a 16 year old girl from a crane for talking to a boy? Do you consider the judge that passed that sentence down to be good or evil?
I do not consider it a good act to hang a person from a crane in general... unless the person is a Faux News commentator or a politician. The Judge, though may or may not have committed an evil act... at the very least his sentence indicates that that his society is probably broken and in need of serious psychological help. If his decision is outside the mainstream decisions passed by his peers, then his act was probably evil. If his sentence is identical or similar to other sentences passed by other judges for similar "crimes", then it seems like a problem within the society and may not be an "evil" judge.
There are often far too many variables in human life to label an individual as good or evil, specifically. I think its more legitimate to discuss the acts of an individual in the context of good or evil, than trying to identify a person's entire existence that way.
But then I don't speak R-Prime well ;-)
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 07:37:05 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?
Well, the historical record is a bit sparse on details (and the details apparently varied from polis to polis), but there is some evidence that indicates a mutual respect between the man and the boy. Obviously this could be false information, or there may have been some asshats that weren't respectful... but it doesn't appear that the documented evidence supports Greek Men just running about shoving their dicks into any available Boy Orafice.
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 07:37:05 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:30:49 PM
butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?
well sure, there were probably instances of nonconsent. But that doesn't mean that ancient greek manboy love was rape.
For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.
Libertarianism -> Stories about kids getting sodomized...
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on March 01, 2010, 07:48:23 PM
Libertarianism -> Stories about kids getting sodomized...
every freaking time. i swear to god....
:cry:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:46:58 PM
For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.
False dichotomy. In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex. Instances of a man raping his wife are documented,
and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.
Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 07:45:36 PM
I do not consider it a good act to hang a person from a crane in general... unless the person is a Faux News commentator or a politician. The Judge, though may or may not have committed an evil act... at the very least his sentence indicates that that his society is probably broken and in need of serious psychological help. If his decision is outside the mainstream decisions passed by his peers, then his act was probably evil. If his sentence is identical or similar to other sentences passed by other judges for similar "crimes", then it seems like a problem within the society and may not be an "evil" judge.
There are often far too many variables in human life to label an individual as good or evil, specifically. I think its more legitimate to discuss the acts of an individual in the context of good or evil, than trying to identify a person's entire existence that way.
But then I don't speak R-Prime well ;-)
Is that a yes or a no?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once. it was even premeditated.
Even if a boy does consent...statutory rape laws exists on the assumption that people of young age are less likely to understand the consequences of sexual acts. People should be allowed to make the conscious decision, not have some bona fide patriarch decide, in a mentoring fashion, "Well, Adrastos, today is the day."
To me, it seems worse that this was part of some legitimate process.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once. it was even premeditated.
My argument says nothing of the kind.
Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that. Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.
Done here. Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:46:58 PM
For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.
False dichotomy. In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex. Instances of a man raping his wife are documented, and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.
Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?
yes
in fact, consent was
more central to the manboy relationship than to the hetero marriages of the age.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_GreeceBoys entered into such relationships from the age of twelve to about eighteen or nineteen, though some suggest they started around fifteen.[16] This was around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage – also to adult husbands many years their senior. There was a difference between the two types of bonding: boys usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate. Girls, on the other hand, were used for economic and political advantage, their marriages contracted at the discretion of the father and the suitor.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once. it was even premeditated.
My argument says nothing of the kind.
Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that. Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.
Done here. Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.
Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what
you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....
:)
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:11:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once. it was even premeditated.
My argument says nothing of the kind.
Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that. Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.
Done here. Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.
Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....
:)
You stated that people cannot be evil.
I gave a counterexample.
You then deliberately lied about what my argument states.
You win. Enjoy your victory.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
I suppose some of his friends might have thought he was very nice... or maybe his students, back when he was a history teacher.
However, I think it boils down to this for me:
I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct. For such standards to exist, we would have to posit some intelligence outside of the subjective experience of humans that created this objective standard. As I have seen no evidence to support the existence of this Intelligence, then I must consider moral and ethical standards to be subjective, only knowable to individuals as seen through the bars of their Black Iron Prison. However, such a realization does not paralyze me in moral or ethical quandaries. Because, if morals and ethics are dependent upon the subjective experience of the individual, then I can judge actions of other by my perception of morals and ethics.
That means that I have no problem determining if A) I'd like to be friends with a particular human, B) I would not like to be friends with a particular human, C) Said human can go die in a fire or D) I would like to use my Zippo to set said human on fire and watch them die. This determination, though, is based not on generic labels so I can absolve myself of the responsibility, but rather on my subjective experiences of life.
So, Doktor Howl gets to be in group A. Most of the Tea Party gets to be in group B. Pat Robertson is in group C and people like Osama Bin Laden, the serial killer they recently found in Cleveland, the people that put their kid in a suitcase and dumped her in the ocean... etc etc are in group D.
I don't consider the people in Group D to necessarily be "Evil", but I do consider their acts to be punishable by death, based on my subjective view of reality.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:13:25 PM
I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 08:05:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 07:46:58 PM
For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.
False dichotomy. In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex. Instances of a man raping his wife are documented, and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.
Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?
yes
in fact, consent was more central to the manboy relationship than to the hetero marriages of the age.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_GreeceBoys entered into such relationships from the age of twelve to about eighteen or nineteen, though some suggest they started around fifteen.[16] This was around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage – also to adult husbands many years their senior. There was a difference between the two types of bonding: boys usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate. Girls, on the other hand, were used for economic and political advantage, their marriages contracted at the discretion of the father and the suitor.
I was just about to quote that Cram ;-)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:13:25 PM
I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
I am not expected to make sense to people with factory-condition brains.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:13:05 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:11:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
No. insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Right. Pol Pot was really a very nice man.
He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once. it was even premeditated.
My argument says nothing of the kind.
Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that. Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.
Done here. Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.
Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....
:)
You stated that people cannot be evil.
I gave a counterexample.
You then deliberately lied about what my argument states.
You win. Enjoy your victory.
No. i stated that there's more than one way to look at it.
you gave an extreme example that i handily admitted would be completely unsatisfying to look at it with the view that actor and action should be divorced. When I point out that more likely examples are vague, messy and with arbitrary boundaries, you trotted out another historical despot or mass murderer.
I guess I could concede to your absolute terms, but....
Nah.
i'll take the victory. :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
You're not
actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not. But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not. But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....
Does it matter? You won, right?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:29:01 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not. But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....
Does it matter? You won, right?
well, yeah, but i'm not
evil!
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:31:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:29:01 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not. But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....
Does it matter? You won, right?
well, yeah, but i'm not evil!
Sorry, Ippie. Had a bit of irrationality for lunch. At least they only last a few minutes instead of hours or days, anymore.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:19:30 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:31:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:29:01 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.
Perhaps he'll argue it with you.
So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.
You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not. But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....
Does it matter? You won, right?
well, yeah, but i'm not evil!
Sorry, Ippie. Had a bit of irrationality for lunch. At least they only last a few minutes instead of hours or days, anymore.
So lets go back to debating then :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 08:15:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 08:13:25 PM
I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.
This would be fun to argue (edited by Rat)
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:39:39 PM
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.
If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.
So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:
'Objective' standards of morals and ethics, standards agreed upon by all societies of humans, exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).
I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:39:39 PM
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.
If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.
So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:
'Objective' standards of morals and ethics, standards agreed upon by all societies of humans, exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).
I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.
Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?
I think that for the most part, people are not pure "evil" or "good". That is a very simplistic way to view people, in my opinion. They are complicated; there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum, and the spectrum is influenced by cultural values. The closest thing to a pure evil personality I can think of are sociopaths, who are devoid of compassion and empathy, and types of delusional mental illness in which doing terrible things seems to be justified for an imaginary "greater good". Combine the two and add some megalomania and you have Pol Pot.
This does bring us to the "was Hitler an evil man, or was he a complicated, sick man who did evil things under the delusion that he was doing the best thing to preserve his country, his culture, and his people"?
I don't know. Nobody does.
I do know that saying that all Hitler-era Nazis were evil people completely discounts the humanity of young men who believed party propaganda or were forced into service. By that criterion, all US soldiers are evil people because of the military actions in Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, every member of the Republican party is an evil person.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 01, 2010, 10:39:50 PM
I think that for the most part, people are not pure "evil" or "good". That is a very simplistic way to view people, in my opinion.
Pure isn't required. Though it may be simplistic, it is sometimes the only safe presumption to make.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 01, 2010, 10:39:50 PM
They are complicated; there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum, and the spectrum is influenced by cultural values. The closest thing to a pure evil personality I can think of are sociopaths, who are devoid of compassion and empathy, and types of delusional mental illness in which doing terrible things seems to be justified for an imaginary "greater good". Combine the two and add some megalomania and you have Pol Pot.
This does bring us to the "was Hitler an evil man, or was he a complicated, sick man who did evil things under the delusion that he was doing the best thing to preserve his country, his culture, and his people"?
I don't know. Nobody does.
I do know that saying that all Hitler-era Nazis were evil people completely discounts the humanity of young men who believed party propaganda or were forced into service. By that criterion, all US soldiers are evil people because of the military actions in Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, every member of the Republican party is an evil person.
That would apply if I had stated that the Wehrmacht was also evil (which I have not), and if I hadn't already allowed for people (and there were plenty of them, military and non-military) who were forced into the Nazi party. Also, it does no good to blame the GOP for the war in Iraq. The Dems fell all over themselves to rubber stamp it. My conclusion is that the government as a whole is evil, party notwithstanding.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:39:39 PM
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.
If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.
So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:
'Objective' standards of morals and ethics, standards agreed upon by all societies of humans, exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).
I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.
Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?
Sounds good, esp those damned jaywalkers! :argh!:
In fact I'd shorten it to crimes that restrict the freedoms and person of another human. Rape, Murder, Slavery, various forms of Abuse
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 01, 2010, 10:39:50 PM
there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum,
Agreed.
I propose a spectrum going from 0(innocent) to infinity(ultimate evil) instead of the more commonly used negative infinty to infinity (where 0 is innocent and the opposite infinities are good/evil).
the numbers are irrelevant of course, i just think they help with visualisation.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 10:49:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?
Sounds good, esp those damned jaywalkers! :argh!: (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking)
In fact I'd shorten it to crimes that restrict the freedoms and person of another human. Rape, Murder, Slavery, various forms of Abuse
Agreed.
I would really like to say something about taxes just being theft by the biggest gang but i like the direction this thread is going so i won't.
Also, i have decided to hide tvtropes links in smileys whenever i can. 8) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForScience)
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 01, 2010, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 01, 2010, 05:39:00 AM
I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.
Like if it were a competition?
I can get behind that.
Yeah. If you're going to systematize wickedness, you might as well put it to work refining the art.
Well, as a matter of ethics, we could promote "evil points" as golf-like(aim for a low score), bowling-like, basketball-like, or tetris-like...
Quote from: Template on March 02, 2010, 01:40:25 AM
Well, as a matter of ethics, we could promote "evil points" as golf-like(aim for a low score), bowling-like, basketball-like, or tetris-like...
Sure is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT out today, hmm?
+.65 evil points
8)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:39:39 PM
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.
If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.
So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:
'Objective' standards of morals and ethics, standards agreed upon by all societies of humans, exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).
I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.
Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?
Perhaps quite a few more, if we are supposed to believe this quote from Stephen Pinker about "Universal People":
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=15821.0
Bump for the best rant against libertarianism I have read in a very long time:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/ayn-rand-in-uganda-2/
QuoteYou might say that Marx's nightmare is Paul's utopia. According to Marx, the defining characteristic of capitalism is the commodification of human labor. He described this arrangement as "transitory serfdom". According to libertarians, not only is the sale of one's labor power not exploitative or serf-like, it is an expression of human freedom. American anarchist Voltairine De Cleyre called this "freedom" a "mysterious wetness" unconnected to anything tangible or real; others, that it represents the "freedom to starve". The relationship between the capitalist and the worker is similar to the relationship between an armed robber and his victim. A mugging victim has the choice not to turn over his wallet, but the power imbalance is so severe that the decision is mostly made for him. The same analogy can be drawn to workers under authoritarian communism.
QuoteRand's philosophy is not difficult to articulate. It can be summed up by the title of one her books, The Virtue of Selfishness. For Rand, the very characteristics that human beings tend to most admire about ourselves – compassion, empathy, altruism, cooperation, egalitarianism and other "higher angels" – are actually the most dangerous elements of our nature. A free society will evolve when individuals look out solely for themselves.
It should be noted, at this point, that Rand's philosophy represents a revolt against human nature. Not only are we hard-wired to feel emotions like empathy, it is precisely our ability to share, commiserate and act collectively that allows us to survive as a species. Moreover, recent data suggests that the great bugaboo of libertarianism – equality of outcome – is actually the single most important determinant of health and happiness in society.
QuoteThere are so many problems with libertarianism that it would require a set of encyclopedias to elucidate them. It should be sufficient to note that were a theoretical "free market" ever to come into existence, it would quickly succumb to monopoly. Capitalism has never existed without a strong state to protect wealth disparities and maintain stability in markets, nor could it, for the simple reason that most human beings resent hierarchical relationships and will always act collectively to oppose them. Orwell dismissed the libertarians as follows:
Quote(What Hayek) does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them.
Nice.
I plan to quote that at a few boards.
Another halfassed idea (regarding politics):
If taxes = extortion and extorting people = bad then don't tax people, tax organisations (companies, churches, bowlingteams, whatever)
Where the larger the organisation the higher the tax percentage.
this would prevent monopolies from occuring without hurting free market competition.
I guess the next time some randroid tries to talk to me about libertarianism, I can honestly respond with "sorry, sociopathy is against my religion." 8)
Quote from: Kai on March 14, 2010, 06:24:33 PM
I guess the next time some randroid tries to talk to me about libertarianism, I can honestly respond with "sorry, sociopathy is against my religion." 8)
Kai nails it.
:lulz:
I have always maintained that libertarianism is just an elaborate excuse to act like an inhuman monster.
Strangely enough, libertarians get really upset when you say things like that.
Also, note that one of the authors of the Dissendant Voice blog is a holocaust denier. Don't know why the main editor allows him to stay.
That's way off the topic though. Back to understanding the sociopathic behaviors of libertarians/randroids.
Yay, not content with repeating the same thread topics as before, we're now repeating posts within the threads themselves. Y'all had the human nature discussion back on pages 5-6.
Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2010, 07:59:39 PM
Yay, not content with repeating the same thread topics as before, we're now repeating posts within the threads themselves. Y'all had the human nature discussion back on pages 5-6.
Wow, I completely forgot about that. :lulz:
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on March 14, 2010, 07:37:06 PM
I have always maintained that libertarianism is just an elaborate excuse to act like an inhuman monster.
Strangely enough, libertarians get really upset when you say things like that.
I'm gonna go grind that in some libertarian's chops. Because I'm in a mood.
Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2010, 07:59:39 PM
Yay, not content with repeating the same thread topics as before, we're now repeating posts within the threads themselves. Y'all had the human nature discussion back on pages 5-6.
Repetition is key to learning.
Why do you hate learning?
Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2010, 07:59:39 PM
Yay, not content with repeating the same thread topics as before, we're now repeating posts within the threads themselves. Y'all had the human nature discussion back on pages 5-6.
Everybody stop posting.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, at least make them accurate. For example:
"why oh why must we have exactly the same conversation on libertarianism every three months or so?"
I don't want everyone to stop posting, I want everyone to stop repeating themselves. I already know Ayn Rand is a moron and that altruism is a hard-wired human attribute. However I haven't seen a single take-down of the non-aggression principle or homesteading in any of these discussions.
ooh we should maybe get one of those signal bot 3000 or whatever it was called. I think the xkcd IRC channel invented it. basically it kicks anyone that says a line that has been said before, since EVER.
ok it got a few more rules than that but you do get kicked, and with each offense the waiting period before you can join again gets longer. but also decreases again after a longer while. those geeks tweaked the fuck out of it.
there's also a 4chan-style imageboard version of it.
it works pretty well, except for the part that a lot of the threads/lines are about people trying novel ways to game the system :)
The problem with that is that it takes an operationalist approach to originality. An original phrase is not necessarily an original thought, and an original thought is not necessarily an original phrase.
tl;dr: you can't define originality as what hasn't been said yet.
All I know is that every conversation I've enjoyed in the last week has been shat upon.
Done in this section, I think.
thread over
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian
JON WINS
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 01, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 09:39:39 PM
Okay, so let's establish a few terms.
Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?
No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.
If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.
So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:
'Objective' standards of morals and ethics, standards agreed upon by all societies of humans, exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).
I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.
I do not think terrorist killings can be considered random. They are usually much closer to the acts of a soldier. Someone who has dehumanized the enemy in their mind. For instance, if Jews are all descended from pigs, and are nasty monstrous creatures, the fact that by blowing myself up I have killed not only some Jewish Police and soldiers, who might bulldoze my family's home and/or shoot my fellow freedom fighters, but I also killed some random Jewish civilians, and children, that counts as a bonus, because even though were not going to hurt me personally they are still nasty pig people who ought to be wiped out. It's the same sort of conditioning most nations use when at war. A Palestinian terrorist is not going to go into, for example, a Chinese business and randomly open fire because the Chinese have not been dehumanized for him, while the Jews have.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 01, 2010, 10:39:50 PM
I think that for the most part, people are not pure "evil" or "good". That is a very simplistic way to view people, in my opinion. They are complicated; there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum, and the spectrum is influenced by cultural values. The closest thing to a pure evil personality I can think of are sociopaths, who are devoid of compassion and empathy, and types of delusional mental illness in which doing terrible things seems to be justified for an imaginary "greater good". Combine the two and add some megalomania and you have Pol Pot.
This does bring us to the "was Hitler an evil man, or was he a complicated, sick man who did evil things under the delusion that he was doing the best thing to preserve his country, his culture, and his people"?
I don't know. Nobody does.
I do know that saying that all Hitler-era Nazis were evil people completely discounts the humanity of young men who believed party propaganda or were forced into service. By that criterion, all US soldiers are evil people because of the military actions in Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, every member of the Republican party is an evil person.
Democratic party too.