I knew what kind of reaction I'd get from the mindless minions, I was more interested in talking to Clayton.
bloomj31: And Autolykos, dude, what makes you think you deserve any more responses from me? You goad me into expanding on my original post, ignore everything I say. You're a waste of time. If anyone's trolling, it's you.
And Autolykos, dude, what makes you think you deserve any more responses from me? You goad me into expanding on my original post, ignore everything I say. You're a waste of time. If anyone's trolling, it's you.
No. You fail to elaborate on your beliefs when asked. All he wants is for you to state what it is you do believe, instead of the constant dodging you do.
But I've already told you what I believe. What do I get in return? " HE SAID MIGHT MAKES RIGHT HURRRRRR"
bloomj31:And Autolykos, dude, what makes you think you deserve any more responses from me? You goad me into expanding on my original post, ignore everything I say. You're a waste of time. If anyone's trolling, it's you.
As far as I'm concerned, "dude", I certainly don't ignore everything you say, and I'm certainly not trolling. What kind of response did you expect from your incredibly vague (IMO) early posts in this thread? I think it's highly likely that such posts would pique others' curiosity, and yours certainly did. So I think it's reasonable to expect probing responses, which you did receive. So I'm at a loss to explain why else you would bother making your initial posts at all.
Now then, what are you so afraid of that's now keeping you from actually answering me?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Keep trolling.
bloomj31:But I've already told you what I believe. What do I get in return? " HE SAID MIGHT MAKES RIGHT HURRRRRR"
As far as I can tell, there's no avoiding it - it's what you believe. Apparently you don't like being outed so easily. Oh well. I mean, if the inferences I've drawn are so flawed, then it should be easy for you to explain just how flawed they are. Instead - again, this is from my own perspective - you try to change the subject and otherwise obfuscate the issue.
I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on what you consider to be legitimate, if anything could be legitimate in your view. Until then, it is you who are the troll.
Anything could be considered legitimate or illegitimate. What makes the claim relevant is the ability to enforce it. Otherwise the claim doesn't matter.
bloomj31: Anything could be considered legitimate or illegitimate. What makes the claim relevant is the ability to enforce it. Otherwise the claim doesn't matter.
So, do you believe that whatever the current statutory law states is legitimate? Or do you have opinions based on any particular philosophy?
Strictly speaking legitimate means "according to law." So yes, the current laws are legitimate by definition. But laws can be inconsistent with prior law, they can be widely unpopular, they can violate social norms or even seem immoral to people depending on their values.
If you're asking me "can a law be immoral according to my personal values" then yes, I think a law can be immoral. But my personal values do not, by themselves, give me sufficient power to change the law. Without power my values are just my values and nothing more.
bloomj31:Strictly speaking legitimate means "according to law." So yes, the current laws are legitimate by definition. But laws can be inconsistent with prior law, they can be widely unpopular, they can violate social norms or even seem immoral to people depending on their values.
Thanks for providing your definition of "legitimate". I can now see that it's quite different from mine, which is "not to be opposed with coercion". As you can probably see, "legitimacy" and "morality" are very similar in my view.
bloomj31:If you're asking me "can a law be immoral according to my personal values" then yes, I think a law can be immoral. But my personal values do not, by themselves, give me sufficient power to change the law. Without power my values are just my values and nothing more.
Your values are always just your values. How could they ever be anything more?
Anyways, if you're not amoral, then what are your personal values?
bloomj31: Strictly speaking legitimate means "according to law." So yes, the current laws are legitimate by definition. But laws can be inconsistent with prior law, they can be widely unpopular, they can violate social norms or even seem immoral to people depending on their values.
Not all of us consider statutes to be lawful. Just because there is a gang making rules in a particular area, that does not make their rules lawful. I consider the US government to not be lawful, and therefore not legitimate.
I suppose I should've been more specific. These conversations are impossible when the words are left undefined.
My personal values are based on the fear of the wrath of God. Some things just seem....unconscionable, unforgivable. I do not fear being immoral in the eyes of man, I fear being immoral in the eyes of God.
gotlucky: Not all of us consider statutes to be lawful. Just because there is a gang making rules in a particular area, that does not make their rules lawful. I consider the US Government to not be lawful, and therefore not legitimate.
bloomj31: K.
K.
This is a pretty vague response. Do you agree with it, or just accept that I have stated it? Because it is a statement that contradicts your earlier statement. If I were to hold you to your previous statement, that "the current [statutory] laws are legitimate," then it would seem that you do, in fact, believe in might makes right.
You haven't contradicted anything.
You've just said the US government's laws are unlawful. This is like saying the color orange is not the color orange.
What I think you're trying to say is that the US government doesn't have the moral right to make and enforce laws because they do so without the voluntary consent of ALL the governed.
So basically the US government's laws are at odds with your values. I agree that the US government's laws are at odds with your values, I do not agree with your values.
I said no such thing. That you call them laws does not make them such. They are statutes. That a gang can come into a neighborhood and enforce rules does not make those rules into law. It is like calling orange a sound because the man with the most guns says it is.
What I am saying is that just because some gang has the power to enforce its rules, that does not make those rules law.
Many of the US government's statutes are at odds with my values. Why do you claim that its statutes are not at odds with your values?
A perfect example of how absurd statutes are: statutory rape. Statutory rape is not rape. It is consensual sex, and some gang has decided to call it rape. Well, it is not rape, as rape is nonconsensual sex. But of course, according to you, I must be wrong, because the gang with the most guns has said that it is in fact rape.
So what is a law then?
Law as defined by dictionary.com:
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.
I do know why this is getting cut off.
Of course, how could I have missed it?! You failed to respond to this part of my post:
gotlucky: If I were to hold you to your previous statement, that "the current [statutory] laws are legitimate," then it would seem that you do, in fact, believe in might makes right.
If I were to hold you to your previous statement, that "the current [statutory] laws are legitimate," then it would seem that you do, in fact, believe in might makes right.
I suppose the only part of your post that responded to it was:
bloomj31: So basically the US government's laws are at odds with your values. I agree that the US government's laws are at odds with your values, I do not agree with your values.
You make it sound as if you do agree with the US government's laws in this statement. So, why do you agree with the laws the US government writes? Is it because you believe might makes right?
I believe you're conflating the terms moral right and legal right.
In your mind they are one and the same.
Those are pretty poor definitions of law, because they only address statutory law, and there are many other kinds of law.
The definition of law that I believe encompasses all kinds (it is from define: law in google search):
noun /lô/ laws, plural
This definition is broader and fits for all kinds of legal systems, instead of the ones that you provided.
Ok fine, that definition will do.
bloomj31: I believe you're conflating the terms moral right and legal right. In your mind they are one and the same.
No. They are not one and the same. And I would appreciate a response to the questions I asked. For your ease, I will repost:
gotlucky: You make it sound as if you do agree with the US government's laws in this statement. So, why do you agree with the laws the US government writes? Is it because you believe might makes right?
I said I agree that the government's laws are laws. Not that they are necessarily moral. Morality and law are two different subjects.
A law can be immoral and still be a law.
This fits with your definition as well as mine.
Your response does not address the question I asked. I asked it because you said this:
You do not agree with my values, which are typically at odds with the US government's laws. So, do you agree with the US government's laws? And if you do, is it because you believe in might makes right?
First of all, which law are we talking about?
It's a simple question. You made a categorical statement regarding my beliefs about the US government's laws. You then went on to say that you disagreed with my beliefs. This leads me to conclude that you hold the opposite belief about the categorical statement you made.
So, do you or do you not agree with the US government's laws?
For the record, as I stated previously, I typically do not agree with the US government's laws.
I don't really know what your values are. I just deduced that they must be different from mine based on what you said. I assumed that your values are based on the principles of self ownership and the non aggression principle and all that stuff. Is that right?
Also, for the record, I have no issue with referring to the US government's statutes as laws, even though I do not consider statutes to necessarily be law. The government can issue its edicts, but that does not mean the community at large will obey them. And it is necessary for the community to recognize the statutes for them to be law.
The government can state "thou shalt not murder." Okay, but the community was for that anyway. The government can state "thou shalt report your entire income and pay a percentage of it to us". Okay, but most of and probably nearly all of the community has flagrant disregard for this statute. Most people go out of their way to not report at least part of their income. So, if the community actively ignores a statute, I fail to see how it fits the criteria for law.
So why would you make a statement about disagreeing with my values if you did not know what they are? My values are influenced by the NAP, but I am not strictly bound to it, at least not in a Rothbardian way.
But you are still ignoring my question...which leads me to believe that Autolykos was correct when he stated that you believe in might makes right.
So this really hinges on how the word recognize is being used in this context. I see no reason to believe that in the given definition the word recognize is being used to mean compliance or agreement which seems to be how you want to use it. It looks to me like the word recognize is simply being used to mean that the community acknowledges the law's existence.
Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by the word community. How many people constitute a community? Surely not every single person in a town, city or state or country is going to accept and/or comply with every single law ever made. Does that make those laws not laws?
And what if a "community" decides that murder IS ok? Does that mean the law against murder is no longer a law? If this community of people starts murdering people can they not be charged with murder?
EDIT: The only way you could possibly still think I'm saying something as bland and oversimplified as "might makes right" would be if you were neither reading nor thinking about my posts.
You're just trolling now. You want to put a label on me that will make you happy. You're not interested in a real discussion about this stuff, you just want to be right. I now know that I am wasting my time with you as well.
bloomj31: So this really hinges on how the word recognize is being used in this context. I see no reason to believe that in the given definition the word recognize is being used to mean compliance or agreement which seems to be how you want to use it. It looks to me like the word recognize is simply being used to mean that the community acknowledges the law's existence.
From wiktionary on recognize:
(transitive) To acknowledge the existence or legality of something; treat as worthy of consideration or valid.
Law requires the acknowledgement of the community. In other words, if the community does not acknowledge the legality of something, how is it legal?
bloomj31: Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by the word community. How many people constitute a community? Surely not every single person in a town, city or state or country is going to accept and/or comply with every single law ever made. Does that make those laws not laws?
Communities vary in size and depend upon context. When we are talking about the law in a given area, the community refers to the people who reside in that given area.
bloomj31: And what if a "community" decides that murder IS ok? Does that mean the law against murder is no longer a law? If this community of people starts murdering people can they not be charged with murder?
Murder is by definition not okay. Are you asking if homicide is okay? A community could decide that homocide is never okay, or that it always is. But any community that believes that homicide is always permitted will not last very long.
bloomj31: EDIT: The only way you could possibly still think I'm saying something as bland and oversimplified as "might makes right" would be if you were neither reading nor thinking about my posts. You're just trolling now. You want to put a label on me that will make you happy. You're not interested in a real discussion about this stuff, you just want to be right. I now know that I am wasting my time with you as well.
No. You have delibrately been ignoring questions posed directly to you. Simple questions. Yes or no questions. When you delibrately ignore these questions, it really leaves people no choice but to believe the worst. If you truly wanted to engage in debate, you would just simply say that it is not the case that you agree with all of the US government's laws. Or you would say that it is the case that you do agree with all their laws and explain why you do. Or you would say that you only agree with some and explain why you do. But you do not do this. You delibrately ignore the questions asked. And you delibrately respond with vague answers. Why else would you delibrately ignore those questions on multiple occasions?
Well for one copying and pasting in this awful forum is a real pain. The quote button doesn't work. I frequently get the "non matching quote blocks" thing when I try to respond to your posts. Then I have to manually copy everything in notepad, include all the quote parameters myself, and then copy and paste once more. I frequently get spacing errors when I do this. Also I can't seem to use backspace without entire lines getting deleted.
I hate to answer three or four part questions when I think certain parts deserve special consideration on their own. I'm also afraid to type out long responses because frequently the forum won't let me post them. It turns out I cannot copy anything I write into this chat window. Right clicking simply brings up the option to paste. I've had to manually copy several posts into new windows. It's infuriating.
Feel free to answer in separate posts if it makes it easier.
How many people are in a community? How many of these people have to refuse to recognize a law before it ceases to become one?
Do they have to be against the law? Partially against the law? Completely disobeying? Partially disobeying?
EDIT: Separately I agree with what I feel is a large part of the government's laws. But obviously I don't know every single law in existence. It would help if we could talk about something specific so I could actually research a particular law instead of having to speak in generalities.
I was more interested in talking to Clayton
I don't see any response from you in this thread to my post.
Clayton -
Yeah I read that post. It was very well written I enjoyed it. I didn't find anything to disagree with.
bloomj31: How many people are in a community? How many of these people have to refuse to recognize a law before it ceases to become one?
As I said before, it depends upon the community. An individual chess club can be pretty small, but the international chess federations can have a large community. Likewise, a town of 500 has a community of 500 (and perhaps the few outsiders that might go there on occasion could be considered part of the community, maybe), and a city like NYC has a huge community, numbering in the millions. And NYC can be broken down into smaller communities.
How many people in any given community have to recognize a law for it to be a law (or what you originally asked)? Well, it depends. Have you read Clayton's posts What Law Is or A Praxeological Account of Law? If it were a community based on customary law, whenever it becomes part of the customary law or ceases to be part. If it is a statutory law community, then it's only law if people recognize it. Where mince pies break the law... is a article by the BBC about various statutory laws that are still on the books but not enforced. These are humorous examples, but the same principle applies to existing laws today. If enough people don't follow it, then it ceases to be law.
bloomj31: EDIT: Separately I agree with what I feel is a large part of the government's laws. But obviously I don't know every single law in existence. It would help if we could talk about something specific so I could actually research a particular law instead of having to speak in generalities.
Well, you were the one who was using categorical statements, not me. I mean, you either agree with all laws, some laws, or no laws. Those are the only options. Once you pick one of those, I would like to read your explanation as to why you picked what you picked.
I agree that all US (federal, state, local) government laws are laws. I may not agree with them at a moral level but I understand that they are all potentially enforceable and worthy of my respect no matter how erroneous or morally depraved they may seem to me to be.
I try to follow every law that I am aware of however I am not all knowing, perhaps I break laws everyday but I don't know it. If this is the case I have had no indication of it.
I do not accept this idea that just because someone doesn't follow the law that the law ceases to exist. The law continues to exist it's just not being complied with and/or enforced. I may not have made the best argument for this, particularly since I allowed you to use overly broad definitions when defining law but that doesn't matter.
Based on your nebulous definition, a "community" can effectively nullify a law through non-compliance and non-observation. You do not say how many people it takes to do this. Perhaps you think you can personally refuse to pay your taxes and that you therefore won't owe any. I don't believe this will be the case. You will still owe taxes, you just won't have paid them yet.
You brought up statutory rape earlier. Statutory rape laws are not federally mandated, they vary from state to state. I do not know where you live but perhaps you can get a community together that likes having sex with underage people and see if your community can nullify the law.
I have enjoyed reading Clayton's post "A Praxeological Account of Law."
I found this part to be of particular interest:
"But it is very difficult to get even two people to make one choice that they both agree is the best for the both of them taken together. Each party wants to keep everything and give up nothing. The prospect of violent conflict if the issue is not settled – and the uncertainty regarding the outcome of such a conflict – drives them to bargain with one another. There cannot be social order without the cattle-prod of the prospect of violent conflict driving disputants to arbitrate their disputes. Thieves would simply keep the proceeds of their theft and social order would necessarily disintegrate."
This is what I mean when I say that every dispute I've ever engaged in either implicitly or explicitly involved violence or the possibility of violence.