To Protect and to Serve...

[Cdywolfe]

There should be no variables that go into deciding whether it is moral or not. Regardless of its location, deep in the woods or next to a public school, the drug itself reaches its destination. And it affects more than those who take it. Just look at the downfall of areas where meth has spread.

Referencing breaking bad.. Really?

Here is my issues with the anarchy frame of mind. You believe in everything being left up to the free market until you see it morally unjust. However what you see as morally unjust others won't. Then you have a disagreement. Who resolves that disagreement? An authority figure? Nope, authority bad.

This is the exact reason we have laws. Because as a society no one will ever see eye to eye on any subject. The laws of this land is what keeps us as civilized as what we are. Just because you see a law as immoral doesn't mean others do. I don't like all the laws we have, however I don't see officers who enforce those laws as bad cops or immoral.

Okay... You see legislation as an exemption from morality. Some of us don't.

I also love the "laws are the only thing that keep us civilized" argument. Are you saying that law is the only thing that keeps you civilized? I know it's not what's keeping me civilized and I'm not presumptuous enough to think I'm mortally superior to everyone else. Are there evil people? Of course. I don't know exactly how a stateless society would handle those people but it would have to be better than what we do now... Which is elect them to congress and allow them to take half our money and violently control us through arbitrary and asinine "laws".

 

[Cdywolfe]

Also want to say this. As much as I disagree with your alls stance on anarchy. I can't help but respect the fact you are so dedicated to it.



Even if it's completely wrong.

I agree... I'll respect anyone's stance as long as they want to discuss it civilly. The issue is when, people I won't name, don't like critism of their profession and get personal and nasty as a result.

 

[Cdywolfe]

I certainly don't have all the answers. If there was a switch where I could just turn government off I honestly don't think I'd push it. We currently have far too many people who are completely dependent on the government. I'm not talking just about welfare recipients. Every government employee would instantly be jobless. Hell... I don't know if I'd still have a job. As much government funding that goes into healthcare, who knows what hospitals would look like in a decade. It would certainly be disastrous to just shut it off.

It's like I was telling DTH, I have no clue how to get where we are to where we need to be.

 

[TNsnyper20]

I certainly don't have all the answers. If there was a switch where I could just turn government off I honestly don't think I'd push it. We currently have far too many people who are completely dependent on the government. I'm not talking just about welfare recipients. Every government employee would instantly be jobless. Hell... I don't know if I'd still have a job. As much government funding that goes into healthcare, who knows what hospitals would look like in a decade. It would certainly be disastrous to just shut it off.

It's like I was telling DTH, I have no clue how to get where we are to where we need to be.

My issue with most on this is they feel they know the answer and their way is the best way. Who knows where we will be in 100 years. But until then we all should continue to abide by the laws we have.

And yes I truly believe the laws we have now keep us somewhat civilized as a society. We are way too diverse as a country to be able to function without them.

I still don't understand how one can look at a person running a meth lab as moral depending on location and how is run. That baffles me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Okay... You see legislation as an exemption from morality. Some of us don't.

I also love the "laws are the only thing that keep us civilized" argument. Are you saying that law is the only thing that keeps you civilized? I know it's not what's keeping me civilized and I'm not presumptuous enough to think I'm mortally superior to everyone else. Are there evil people? Of course. I don't know exactly how a stateless society would handle those people but it would have to be better than what we do now... Which is elect them to congress and allow them to take half our money and violently control us through arbitrary and asinine "laws".

It's interesting that you equate 'morality' and 'civilized' to such extremes as whether someone is 'evil' or not. Go to any store on Black Friday and extol the inherent virtues of humanity. They attack each other over toys for their kids.

How thin do you think the veneer of civilization is if food shortages happened and peoples' kids were starving. Or if a viral epidemic broke out. Or if an area's water supply was polluted and people had to figure out who got the last little bit of potable water.

You're lazy. Every anarchist I've ever dealt with plays the "I don't know how anarchist society would handle that, but..." card.

Let me ask you a question, since you've been so free to declare the immorality of laws (and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but), what is morality? Where does it come from? You decry laws and claim them immoral. So, what makes them immoral? It seems to me that, if you're going to stand up and be the judge of what is moral and immoral, you need to plead that case before expecting anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I certainly don't have all the answers. If there was a switch where I could just turn government off I honestly don't think I'd push it. We currently have far too many people who are completely dependent on the government. I'm not talking just about welfare recipients. Every government employee would instantly be jobless. Hell... I don't know if I'd still have a job. As much government funding that goes into healthcare, who knows what hospitals would look like in a decade. It would certainly be disastrous to just shut it off.

It's like I was telling DTH, I have no clue how to get where we are to where we need to be.

So, why is 'no gov't' where we need to go? You've made the jump from 'bad gov't' to 'no gov't'. Perhaps where we need to go is fixing out gov't to make it as good as it can be.

 

[malinoisvol]

I certainly don't have all the answers. If there was a switch where I could just turn government off I honestly don't think I'd push it. We currently have far too many people who are completely dependent on the government. I'm not talking just about welfare recipients. Every government employee would instantly be jobless. Hell... I don't know if I'd still have a job. As much government funding that goes into healthcare, who knows what hospitals would look like in a decade. It would certainly be disastrous to just shut it off.

Cdy, you hit the nail on the head with this post. I have thought this for a long time. Can't get rid of the IRS, no matter who proposes it, too many jobs tied up in it. Any politician advocating for its banishment is full of bs and just puffin, imo.

 

[TNsnyper20]

It's interesting that you equate 'morality' and 'civilized' to such extremes as whether someone is 'evil' or not. Go to any store on Black Friday and extol the inherent virtues of humanity. They attack each other over toys for their kids.

How thin do you think the veneer of civilization is if food shortages happened and peoples' kids were starving. Or if a viral epidemic broke out. Or if an area's water supply was polluted and people had to figure out who got the last little bit of potable water.

You're lazy. Every anarchist I've ever dealt with plays the "I don't know how anarchist society would handle that, but..." card.

Let me ask you a question, since you've been so free to declare the immorality of laws (and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but), what is morality? Where does it come from? You decry laws and claim them immoral. So, what makes them immoral? It seems to me that, if you're going to stand up and be the judge of what is moral and immoral, you need to plead that case before expecting anyone to take you seriously.

Black Friday is a solid representation on what life would be like in our society under anarchy. This is with laws in place. Can you imagine the chaos without laws?

 

[Cdywolfe]

My issue with most on this is they feel they know the answer and their way is the best way. Who knows where we will be in 100 years. But until then we all should continue to abide by the laws we have.

And yes I truly believe the laws we have now keep us somewhat civilized as a society. We are way too diverse as a country to be able to function without them.

I still don't understand how one can look at a person running a meth lab as moral depending on location and how is run. That baffles me.

I never said cooking meth is moral. I said I think taking someone else and putting them in a cage because they cooked meth is immoral. There's a big difference.

 

[Cdywolfe]

So, why is 'no gov't' where we need to go? You've made the jump from 'bad gov't' to 'no gov't'. Perhaps where we need to go is fixing out gov't to make it as good as it can be.

I'm okay with fixing what we have. In fact, even though I feel like it's a fantasy, that's probably the best I could ever wish for in my lifetime. The problem is that nobody wants to fix it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm okay with fixing what we have. In fact, even though I feel like it's a fantasy, that's probably the best I could ever wish for in my lifetime. The problem is that nobody wants to fix it.

Then you and I are probably really close top one another.

:hi:

 

[TNsnyper20]

I never said cooking meth is moral. I said I think taking someone else and putting them in a cage because they cooked meth is immoral. There's a big difference.

In having a hard time understanding you here. How would you handle this situation then?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I love how people say that without laws we'd be a violent society. Do tell, aren't we a violent society already? So how is the governments way of dealing with these things working out for you? I've never said there'd be no laws in an anarchist society, we want laws we want order, we want services. We also want to have the freedom of association in who we give our money to, and what services are offered.

In an anarchist society I can see separate communities catering to the likes of those living there. Yes, statist communities, communist communities, whatever you'd like.

Think of it as an apartment complex, some allow dogs/cats some don't. I realize that seems very simplistic, truth is, it is and should be. It's all about contracts, and who you'd like to deal with. All of this without the threats of violence of the state.
As far as morality goes, how can government be moral when its first act is to threaten and steal from the people they represent? The state gains compliance by threat of the jail house or the bayonet. You do not have the freedom of voluntary association. You cannot start with immoral means and achieve a moral result.

As far as fixing what we have, I'd argue this is the constitution in action, our society now. You cannot limit government with paper. It'll never work as everything is achieved by government at the end of a rifle barrel.

 

[Cdywolfe]

In having a hard time understanding you here. How would you handle this situation then?

I would leave people who aren't harming anybody alone. Seems pretty simple to me. I would accept the fact that I can't control other people and if they want to do meth that's it's not mine, or anyone else's, right to prevent it through force.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I love how people say that without laws we'd be a violent society. Do tell, aren't we a violent society already? So how is the governments way of dealing with these things working out for you? I've never said there'd be no laws in an anarchist society, we want laws we want order, we want services. We also want to have the freedom of association in who we give our money to, and what services are offered.

In an anarchist society I can see separate communities catering to the likes of those living there. Yes, statist communities, communist communities, whatever you'd like.

Think of it as an apartment complex, some allow dogs/cats some don't. I realize that seems very simplistic, truth is, it is and should be. It's all about contracts, and who you'd like to deal with. All of this without the threats of violence of the state.
As far as morality goes, how can government be moral when its first act is to threaten and steal from the people they represent? The state gains compliance by threat of the jail house or the bayonet. You do not have the freedom of voluntary association. You cannot start with immoral means and achieve a moral result.

As far as fixing what we have, I'd argue this is the constitution in action, our society now. You cannot limit government with paper. It'll never work as everything is achieved by government at the end of a rifle barrel.

You're big on morality. Define it and its source.

You're lazy.

"I'm not saying it'll work. I'm just saying it'll work better than gov't. Even though it never has, and all indications from human nature indicates that it can't."

You're confused too.

"We want no nasty gov't. But there will be laws. And there'll be governments if people want them."

lol

You're all over the place.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You're big on morality. Define it and its source.

You're lazy.

"I'm not saying it'll work. I'm just saying it'll work better than gov't. Even though it never has, and all indications from human nature indicates that it can't."

You're confused too.

"We want no nasty gov't. But there will be laws. And there'll be governments if people want them."

lol

You're all over the place.

The first thing you have to realize is anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean no rules.

I'd say the rational individual would say that theft is immoral, thereby taxation is theft, as well as immoral.

I love when people include human nature. Let's see, isn't government ran by humans? So we can't trust people.... I'm sure you see where this is going, you're a smart guy.

I'm confused? You're the guy who thinks we can limit the government with paper.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The first thing you have to realize is anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean no rules.

I'd say the rational individual would say that theft is immoral, thereby taxation is theft, as well as immoral.

I love when people include human nature. Let's see, isn't government ran by humans? So we can't trust people.... I'm sure you see where this is going, you're a smart guy.

I'm confused? You're the guy who thinks we can limit the government with paper.

You've deflected just about every point made.

If there are no rulers, then who makes and enforces the rules?

You made a logical leap that taxation == theft. Support it.

So, without gov't who is there to temper this human nature that we both agree would be a problem? You seemed to recognize this earlier with your "I'm not saying it would work, but..." comment.

I'm the guyb that thinks that we can limit gov't by becoming informed and involved again. You're the guy that thinks you can limit the big, mean, murderous neighbor/group next door with... ??? Crickets.

Now, as to the total deflection... You keep bringing 'moral' into this. Tell me where you get your definitions for it, and where it comes from.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You've deflected just about every point made.

If there are no rulers, then who makes and enforces the rules?

You made a logical leap that taxation == theft. Support it.

So, without gov't who is there to temper this human nature that we both agree would be a problem? You seemed to recognize this earlier with your "I'm not saying it would work, but..." comment.

I'm the guyb that thinks that we can limit gov't by becoming informed and involved again. You're the guy that thinks you can limit the big, mean, murderous neighbor/group next door with... ??? Crickets.

Now, as to the total deflection... You keep bringing 'moral' into this. Tell me where you get your definitions for it, and where it comes from.

You'd have contract law and the arbitration of those contracts if they are broken. Keep in mind, these contracts are agreed to voluntarily beforehand.
As far as common law as we know it now, I'd say that the actual definition of the word crime would go back to its origin, being against persons or property.

Taxation = theft it's not hard to defend. When you take something from someone that is not yours, that's theft.

No one actually knows if anarchism would work, it would be preferable to the current system as it removes the institution of violence we are currently dealing with. We're not being lazy, we simply don't know. The closest thing in this country we can look to is the old west and how there wasn't a central authority around yet. The Wild West wasn't what we see on TV, that fiction was made up in the 50's for the Sunday western shows.

So what does becoming informed do exactly? Do you become aware of the theft and lies by politicians? Ok, what do we do about it? Vote? There are currently 320 million individuals in this country, under the current paradigm we basically use mob rule to elect your "leaders" do you really expect good results? Can one man or congress decide the rules for these 320 million people? How can laws that may work in D.C. be the exact fit for Seattle for instance?

As for the big mean neighbor group next door. In an anarchist society, we probably have protection agencies. Who's job would be to protect the ones who'd need it. I'd urge you to google threat management group out of Detroit to see how an actual protection agency would work. They wouldn't enforce laws, they'd simply protect their customers.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You've asked your questions, now it's my turn.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You'd have contract law and the arbitration of those contracts if they are broken. Keep in mind, these contracts are agreed to voluntarily beforehand.
As far as common law as we know it now, I'd say that the actual definition of the word crime would go back to its origin, being against persons or property.

Taxation = theft it's not hard to defend. When you take something from someone that is not yours, that's theft.

No one actually knows if anarchism would work, it would be preferable to the current system as it removes the institution of violence we are currently dealing with. We're not being lazy, we simply don't know. The closest thing in this country we can look to is the old west and how there wasn't a central authority around yet. The Wild West wasn't what we see on TV, that fiction was made up in the 50's for the Sunday western shows.

So what does becoming informed do exactly? Do you become aware of the theft and lies by politicians? Ok, what do we do about it? Vote? There are currently 320 million individuals in this country, under the current paradigm we basically use mob rule to elect your "leaders" do you really expect good results? Can one man or congress decide the rules for these 320 million people? How can laws that may work in D.C. be the exact fit for Seattle for instance?

As for the big mean neighbor group next door. In an anarchist society, we probably have protection agencies. Who's job would be to protect the ones who'd need it. I'd urge you to google threat management group out of Detroit to see how an actual protection agency would work. They wouldn't enforce laws, they'd simply protect their customers.

You're hilarious.

Especially the part about not being able to trust a 'mob' to vote for the right person, but burying that right in the middle of an idealistic plea that the mob can be trusted with no authority oversight.

Taxation is only theft if it's not agreed on. Otherwise, it is a group of people paying for services and infrastructure. I agree that much of our current tax burden is bs. That does not make tax == theft.

Now...

You keep talking about morals. And you keep ignoring questions about them. Care to answer them?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You've asked your questions, now it's my turn.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

You're going to have to answer the questions posed about morality before we can discuss such philosophical questions about morality. No?

Until you plead your case for the existence of morality and its origin, this is impossible.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You're hilarious.

Especially the part about not being able to trust a 'mob' to vote for the right person, but burying that right in the middle of an idealistic plea that the mob can be trusted with no authority oversight.

Taxation is only theft if it's not agreed on. Otherwise, it is a group of people paying for services and infrastructure. I agree that much of our current tax burden is bs. That does not make tax == theft.

Now...

You keep talking about morals. And you keep ignoring questions about them. Care to answer them?

Well, you're the one advocating for the current system, yet you think people should be more informed and that will help with the looting and abuse.

Each persons morals are different, what is good for you might not be so to me.You feel that taxation is just, as it provides services and infrastructure. Do we really need government for this? All that really happens is government takes (by force) money from individuals and pays people to provide these things. Again, do we really need government for that? And, are you implying that there is a social contract? I'll need to see proof on this issue.

Morality is human behavior, or how we interact with each other. A system of values, if you will.
We learn in kindergarten, if not before, that it's wrong to hit someone or take something that doesn't belong to us.

 

[TNsnyper20]

You've asked your questions, now it's my turn.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

1) No. This should align with everyone, political figures, LEO'S, and citizens combined. I would call those hypocrites. This is also why the law applies to all individuals.. LEO's as well.

2) No. But this applies now. No one gets a free ride when breaking a law. But in your anarchist life style your state you don't believe in rulers but do believe in rules. So who's going to enforce these rules? And how are these people appointed? Since your point on this question is to point out that some feel they are above the law.... Those will always exist. Hope do you deal with them?

3) this is an impossibility. What one sees as moral another will see add immoral. That's why we have things that are legal and illegal. Legal and illegal is black and white where as moral and immoral is cluttered with gray.

4) I know several LEO'S who have internal investigations done on them when they are accused of using unjust force. So my answer is yes they are.

5) laws are set into place to keep you from doing things.. Not force you to do them. I've yet to see a law that says you need to dance nude down the street in front of the local church. If you believe that a law set in place to keep someone from processing meth is immoral then I have nothing for you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Each persons morals are different, what is good for you might not be so to me. ... And, are you implying that there is a social contract? I'll need to see proof on this issue.

So, how would anarchy manage these vastly different morals? To you, stealing is bad. To me, it is Darwinian survival of the fittest. How would anarchy negotiate this?

I'm not implying anything. I'm asking you to quantify this 'immoral' that you keep talking about. You're yet to do so. You can call taxation immoral all you want, but all you've done so far is make morality relative, so all you're doing is saying 'I don't like taxes', so abolish the state.

and again, without the state, who is there to negotiate a common 'morality', and how is it to make everyone happy when 'right' and 'wrong' is dependent on peoples' opinions?

Morality is human behavior, or how we interact with each other. A system of values, if you will.

Morality is not human behavior. That is 'is'. It is, loosely stated, a system of values. It is 'ought'. So, again... Where does it come from? You've stated that it is relative. How will a stateless society survive such a wildly fluctuating and relative society where 'is' and 'ought' is undefined?

We learn in kindergarten, if not before, that it's wrong to hit someone or take something that doesn't belong to us.

You've described the communication of 'a' morality. Not the origin of 'the' morality.

If you're going to keep basing your ideals on these grandiose claims about 'immoral' behavior, you'll need to do better than this. All you've done so far is tell us that you don't like stuff. You'll need to base your definition of 'immoral' on more than just personal opinion, and you'll need to tell us how anarchy will do a better job of handling all of those varying opinions than government would.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You've asked your questions, now it's my turn.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

It depends on their opinion.

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

Depends on who you talk to.

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

Yes. They can just change their opinion.

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

Depends on who you ask.

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

It depends.

See how this works?