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.
You seem to have a strange definition of the phrase "worthy of respect" - were slave laws worthy of the respect of Americans during that time in our history? You specifically call out "no matter how erroneous or morally depraved" so I can't but conclude that your answer is that you do think the slave laws were worthy of the respect of Americans.
I try to follow every law that I am aware of
Why? If might makes right and you can get away with breaking a law (might) and it is to your benefit, yet you don't, it seems to me that your actions belie your words. With your lips, you say might makes right but when it comes down to it, you act as if legislation makes right.
The law continues to exist it's just not being complied with and/or enforced.
So, just anybody may sit down and write a law which thereby becomes a binding - though unenforced - law?
You will still owe taxes, you just won't have paid them yet.
You (bloomj31) also owe this man your bank account - you just haven't paid him yet. He's waiting!
Clayton -
clayton:You seem to have a strange definition of the phrase "worthy of respect" - were slave laws worthy of the respect of Americans during that time in our history? You specifically call out "no matter how erroneous or morally depraved" so I can't but conclude that your answer is that you do think the slave laws were worthy of the respect of Americans.
Which slave laws? Specifics please.
clayton:Why? If might makes right and you can get away with breaking a law (might) and it is to your benefit, yet you don't, it seems to me that your actions belie your words. With your lips, you say might makes right but when it comes down to it, you act as if legislation makes right.
Because I have never been very good at breaking rules and getting away with it. The worst thing I've done lately is jaywalking or maybe changing lanes without signaling.
clayton:So, just anybody may sit down and write a law which thereby becomes a binding - though unenforced - law?
Sure. But if they can't enforce it, it doesn't matter much.
Also, I've seen that video. He can try to come collect whenever he wants.
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
bloomj31:I suppose I should've been more specific. These conversations are impossible when the words are left undefined.
We can all be more specific sometimes. If you ask me, semantics lies at the heart of debate.
bloomj31: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.
If I may be so bold, this does seem consistent with your earlier statement that human might can be contested. God's might, presumably, can't be. So your concern about being immoral in the eyes of God actually seems consistent with your entire framework of morality, values, and "might makes relevant". My question to you now is, what do you think God values?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
bloomj31:Which slave laws? Specifics please.
With all due respect, I don't think you need specifics here. Clayton was clearly referring to all slave laws that have ever existed in the United States, IMO.
Well I'm sorry I don't know every single slave law that ever existed.
Perhaps if we could narrow this discussion down to a case or a particular piece of legislation then I could do the proper research and make an educated response.
@bloomj31
Clayton had some good responses to your post, so I will only address part of it.
bloomj31: 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.
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.
If it is not enforced, it is not a law. I did not make the claim that if one person doesn't recognize it, then it ceases to be law. I made the claim that if the community doesn't recognize it, then it ceases to be law. So, for the sake of honesty, let's all try to frame each other's arguments correctly whenever possible.
bloomj31: 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.
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.
Firstly, you stated, "Ok fine, that definition will do." If you were not okay with this definition, then you should not have said you were okay with it. This definition is a complete definition, as it encompasses all types of law and legal systems, instead of the narrow definition you were using, which only covered statutory law. Statutory law is only one type of legal system, but it has not always been the dominant legal system throughout the world, and even today, common law still influences many statutory law based states.
Secondly, I do not believe that if I don't pay taxes, then the tax laws will cease to be. I specifically used the word "community" earlier. I would appreciate that you do not try to straw man my arguments. Perhaps you are sour because we have stated you believe in might makes right? Well, as I said before, when you dodge and ignore questions for several posts, that tends to make people think you are doing so because you are trying to avoid answering the question. I have answered your posts, and I have not dodged your questions. So there is no need to try and get back at me by mischaracterizing my arguments.
Thirdly, I do not state how many individuals it takes for something to either become law or cease to be law for a good reason: Nobody knows the answer! How many people does it take for a particular good to become money? The definition of money is "a generally accepted indirect medium of exchange". What is generally accepted? At what point does it become generally accepted? It's the same with language. When did "gay" change to mean "homosexual"? After enough people used the word that way. How many people? I don't know. Neither do you. It's the same with law. If a community does not recognize something as law, then it is not law, whether it is written down or otherwise.
bloomj31: 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.
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.
What's your point here? I don't have any dog in the race over statutory rape. Furthermore, it would not be necessary for all the individuals in a community to "like having sex with underage people" in order for a law to cease being. The community would just have to cease recognizing the law. So the only reason I can think of that you stated that I could get a community full of individuals who like having sex with underage people and try to nullify the law is that you were trying to intimidate me about this particular subject. Why?
bloomj31: 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.
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.
Clayton did not say for each and every dispute. Perhaps it is what he meant, and if that is the case, then I disagree with him on that particular point. Not every dispute requires that both parties threaten the implicit or explicit use of violence. That you have always threatened violence, implicitly or explicitly, by no means disproves my statement that it is not the case that every dispute require the implicit or explicit threat of violence. For a categorical statement, all I need to do is provide one example that makes it false in order to disprove it. I have done so. That particular categorical statement is false. I do not know why you are continuing the issue.
bloomj31: Well I'm sorry I don't know every single slave law that ever existed. Perhaps if we could narrow this discussion down to a case or a particular piece of legislation then I could do the proper research and make an educated response.
Why does it matter about the specifics? Clayton is clearly asking that if the state has a law making some people into slaves (which it has had in the past...), would you believe that this law is worthy of respect?
It's the same with the Jim Crow laws. Do you believe that the Jim Crow laws were worthy of respect? You might respond with, "But which one!?!? Specifics please!" But it is not necessary. The government regulated blacks into second class citizens with those laws. Were those laws worthy of respect? "But which one??!!?!" It doesn't matter, pick one. Forcing blacks to sit on the back of the bus. Different drinking fountains. I don't care. Do you believe those laws were worthy of respect?
Same with slave laws.
gotlucky:If it is not enforced, it is not a law. I did not make the claim that if one person doesn't recognize it, then it ceases to be law. I made the claim that if the community doesn't recognize it, then it ceases to be law.
This is essentially a semantic argument. You say it's not a law, I say it is. Doesn't really matter. You say a "community" can nullify a law through disobedience and non-recognition but you decline to say how many people in any given "community" are necessary for this to occur. I accepted your definitions for the sake of argument. I did not believe at the time nor do I believe now that you've made a particularly compelling case for community dissolution of law because you know neither you nor I can actually meaningfully define "community" as it's being used in this context. Could be 100 people could be 1,000,000. The concept is so broad, vague and non-descipt as to be completely useless and utterly meaningless.
gotlucky:The community would just have to cease recognizing the law.
K. Well good luck to NAMBLA then.
gotlucky: Not every dispute requires that both parties threaten the implicit or explicit use of violence.
Yes they do. Your example is not a contradiction, you just think it is. Both you and your friend would have understood that such a disagreement could have come to blows. You just chose not to fight in your example. Doesn't mean you couldn't have fought over it. The possibility of violence looms over every encounter every human being ever has with another human being, though to different degrees. We are all aware of our fragility and mortality all the time. What clayton was pointing out, I think, was that that knowledge, that fear, is what holds social order together because it gives people reason to seek peaceful resolutions.
You have not disproved my categorical statement because it cannot be disproven. There is always the possibility for violence. Always. It's just understood at such a deep level that you don't even seem to think about it when your buddy refuses to pay his fair share. You automatically jump to unfriending him but this was never the only option.
gotlucky:Why does it matter about the specifics? Clayton is clearly asking that if the state has a law making some people into slaves (which it has had in the past...), would you believe that this law is worthy of respect? It's the same with the Jim Crow laws. Do you believe that the Jim Crow laws were worthy of respect? You might respond with, "But which one!?!? Specifics please!" But it is not necessary. The government regulated blacks into second class citizens with those laws. Were those laws worthy of respect? "But which one??!!?!" It doesn't matter, pick one. Forcing blacks to sit on the back of the bus. Different drinking fountains. I don't care. Do you believe those laws were worthy of respect? Same with slave laws.
Well the devil is always in the details. I'm not going to pick some random slave or segregation law out of a hat. You guys pick a law or a case or whatever and I'll study it and give you an educated response.
I'm also not being asked what I think about them today, but what I think I might have thought about them had I been alive at the time they were still current. So I'm being asked to speculate about what my attitudes MIGHT have been in the 18th and 19th centuries. Seems pointless to me but whatever floats your boat.
We don't think specific laws are necessary because of how we're interpreting this statement of yours:
bloomj31: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 guess the question is, did you mean for the word "potentially" to modify both "enforceable" and "worthy of my respect..."? Or only the former (which is our current interpretation)?
autolykos:My question to you now is, what do you think God values
I don't really know for sure. The concept of God is so foreign to me I find it hard to even contemplate what such a being would value or if it would value things the way we do. God is eternal. Its "desires" if it desires at all would probably be incomprehensible to me because my life is nothing compared to its eternal existence.
As you can tell, I struggle with this question every day. I think I will struggle with it for the rest of my life.
In that case, why are you even concerned about being immoral in the eyes of God? How can you hope to know whether you're ever immoral in His eyes? By your reasoning, shouldn't you be in a state of mortal terror all the time?
autolykos:I guess the question is, did you mean for the word "potentially" to modify both "enforceable" and "worthy of my respect..."? Or only the former (which is our current interpretation)?
I meant only the former.
So I'm being asked if I were exactly the same person I am now, with the same values I have now and I was time-travel-transplanted into the time of slavery in america, would I have respected slavery laws?
bloomj31: This is essentially a semantic argument. You say it's not a law, I say it is. Doesn't really matter. You say a "community" can nullify a law through disobedience and non-recognition but you decline to say how many people in any given "community" are necessary for this to occur. I accepted your definitions for the sake of argument. I did not believe at the time nor do I believe now that you've made a particularly compelling case for community dissolution of law because you know neither you nor I can actually meaningfully define "community" as it's being used in this context. Could be 100 people could be 1,000,000. The concept is so broad, vague and non-descipt as to be completely useless and utterly meaningless.
I noticed how you ignored the analogies for language and money, both of which have definitions as "vague" as this. So, I suppose the definition of money is "so broad, vague and non-descipt [sic] as to be completely useless and utterly meaningless." Congratulations, you have just disproved Austrian Economics.......not!
bloomj31: K. Well good luck to NAMBLA then.
Why wish them luck? I certainly don't. I have yet to figure your morality out.
bloomj31: Yes they do. Your example is not a contradiction, you just think it is. Both you and your friend would have understood that such a disagreement could have come to blows. You just chose not to fight in your example. Doesn't mean you couldn't have fought over it. The possibility of violence looms over every encounter every human being ever has with another human being, though to different degrees. We are all aware of our fragility and mortality all the time. What clayton was pointing out, I think, was that that knowledge, that fear, is what holds social order together because it gives people reason to seek peaceful resolutions. You have not disproved my categorical statement because it cannot be disproven. There is always the possibility for violence. Always. It's just understood at such a deep level that you don't even seem to think about it when your buddy refuses to pay his fair share. You automatically jump to unfriending him but this was never the only option.
Tell that to Ghandi and other practictioners of Jainism. "Oh God, what have we been thinking?! Despite our vow of strict pacifism towards everything, we really do threaten violence against people we have disagreements with!"
Look. I think at this point we have to define dispute - which is a disagreement. Because the last I checked, I have not felt threatened by - nor have I threatened - any body over what TV show to watch next. Obviously, there are people, such as yourself, who find it necessary to try and intimidate others into watching what you want to watch. But this does not mean that it is the case that people threaten violence over what to watch next.
Legal disputes do have the threat of violence, but that is why they are legal disputes. Not every dispute, i.e. disagreement, has the threat of violence hovering in the air. Period. That there are other possibilities does not mean that the parties in question are necessarily aware of these possibilities.
gotlucky:Because the last I checked, I have not felt threatened by - nor have I threatened - any body over what TV show to watch next.
Your mere presence is a potential threat. You could at any time decide that violence is a preferable solution to any problem.
You simply don't go that route. Doesn't mean that violence was never a possibility. Just because it never occurs to you doesn't mean it's not there.
gotlucky:I noticed how you ignored the analogies for language and money, both of which have definitions as "vague" as this.
I don't know enough about language or money to be able to say whether or not your analogy makes any sense. My gut tells me it doesn't but as I am not learned enough in either subject I really can't say.
Which slave laws?
Does it really matter? I think it goes without saying that slavery is immoral (if we can't agree on this, then there's no further point to the discussion) so any law that enforces or enables slavery is a law that is not worthy of respect in my view.
I asked you why laws are worthy of respect and this is what I'm really getting at - answer the question however you like, I'm not picky.
Autolykos noted that semantics are the at the heart of debate - I doubt that you and I use the word "worthy" and "respect" in the same way. I don't consider the bully who beat me up and took my lunch money in 8th grade to be "worthy of my respect." He's worthy of nothing, he was just bigger and stronger and took my lunch money. He is no more worthy of respect than a rabid dog. If he was worthy of anything, it was a kick in the head that I was not able to give him.
Taxation is in precisely the same category of action as the bully who beats up kids and takes their lunch money. They do it because they can. Where is the worthiness (worshipfulness) in that? What is there to respect (hold a sense of reverence or awe) in that?
autolykos: By your reasoning, shouldn't you be in a state of mortal terror all the time?
I am.
bloomj31:I meant only the former. So I'm being asked if I were exactly the same person I am now, with the same values I have now and I was time-travel-transplanted into the time of slavery in america, would I have respected slavery laws?
Okay, so then Clayton, GotLucky, and myself were correct in our understanding of your quoted statement. That means the "potentially enforceable" part can be excised like so:
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 [...] worthy of my respect no matter how erroneous or morally depraved they may seem to me to be.
Notice that I emphasized the word "all" in the above. Since you explicitly declared all federal, state, and local laws (i.e. all laws) in the US to be worthy of your respect, which law(s) we bring up doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, by your reasoning, you must logically conclude that, had you lived in the US before the total elimination of slavery within it, you would have necessarily considered all slavery laws in the US to be worthy of your respect.
bloomj31: autolykos:By your reasoning, shouldn't you be in a state of mortal terror all the time? I am.
autolykos:By your reasoning, shouldn't you be in a state of mortal terror all the time?
I don't believe you.
Clayton, I don't pretend to know if slavery is truly immoral or not. I have no idea how God would view such a thing, or if God would really give a damn.
I know that, at present, the thought of slavery makes me very queasy. As a Jew, I am part of a history of people who have been treated as second class citizens and worse. Would I have been spared the hatred of white people who also hated blacks? Probably not.
But I am the person I am now in large part, I believe, because of my environment. I've grown up in a time where slavery is seen as awful. But anything can be seen as awful. Would I have respected slavery laws? I have no idea. I don't find slavery particularly appealing now, that's for sure.
When I use the word "respect" it's not really about honoring something. It's simply about acknowledging power. I did respect my 8th grade bullies. So much so that I went out of my way to avoid them. Power, to me, is always worthy of respect and fear.
EDIT: I definitely could not see myself as an active abolitionist, sneaking slaves away from their masters and smuggling them into safe zones. Too risky.
bloomj31: Your mere presence is a potential threat. You could at any time decide that violence is a preferable solution to any problem. You simply don't go that route. Doesn't mean that violence was never a possibility. Just because it never occurs to you doesn't mean it's not there.
The threat of violence has to occur in the minds of the parties involved. If it does not, regardless of whether or not it was a possibility, it is not a threat of violence. If I were to threaten you, it would have to occur to me to threaten you. Just because you see it as a possibility in your disputes does not mean it is the case that other people even realize it is a possibility in their own disputes.
Just because you threaten your girlfriend with violence when she wants to watch a different tv show than you does not mean that I threaten my girlfriend with violence. In fact, I do not threaten my girlfriend with violence over tv shows. It does not even occur to me that I could beat her up over what tv show to watch...You may wish to impose upon your girlfriend in such a manner, but I feel great pity for your girlfriend that she is in such an abusive relationship.
bloomj31: I don't know enough about language or money to be able to say whether or not your analogy makes any sense. My gut tells me it doesn't but as I am not learned enough in either subject I really can't say.
It would also appear you don't know much about law or what God thinks either, yet you still make known to us your opinions.
As I stated above, money is commonly accepted indirect medium of exchange. At what point does something become money? At what point does it cease to be money?
It's the same thing with words. We know the meanings of words based on how people use them. "Gay" used to mean "happy". Now it means "homosexual". At what point did it change meanings? Was it after the first homosexual used it to mean homosexual? What about the second? Probably not, because people still would have been using it to mean happy. What about 100,000,000 Americans? Would it have meant that then too? Now nobody uses the word to mean happy. But when did it change?
It's the same thing with law. No one knows exactly when a law ceases to become law or when something becomes law. We cannot point to the exact moment. But we can know if it is law or if it is not.
From our discussion, it appears that you only value statutory law as law. That is, as long as it's written down on a piece of paper by someone with enough power, then it is law - even if it is unenforced. The problem here, is that you do not know about common law or customary law, both of which do not fit the definition you provided earlier. Furthermore, I believe that you actually do not know much about the history of common law or customary law, or even what societies/communities have used it or currently are using it today. You would greatly benefit if you were to research other systems of law, because as it stands now, you are very confused as to what law actually is.
bloomj31: Clayton, I don't pretend to know if slavery is truly immoral or not. I have no idea how God would view such a thing, or if God would really give a damn. I know that, at present, the thought of slavery makes me very queasy. As a Jew, I am part of a history of people who have been treated as second class citizens and worse. Would I have been spared the hatred of white people who also hated blacks? Probably not.
It appears that you do not know much about Judaism, though you claim to be a Jew. I am a former Jew, but I am now an atheist. If you truly believe in God and are a Jew, then you would know that Judaism has rules regarding slaves in the Torah (which is written by God if you are a Jew and believe in God). However, you would also know that slavery is taboo in modern Judaism.
I suspect that at best, you are a reform Jew. It would probably be for the best if you just quit Judaism altogether because I can't imagine you actually researching Jewish thought on law and morality.
If you want to know more about Judaism, I suggest you talk to FlyingAxe on the forums. I believe he is actually a practicing Orthodox Jew, so he would be more qualified to answer any questions you have about Judaism if you were so inclined to learn about it.
Furthermore, it is bizarre that you would say that you feel queasy about slavery because of the history of Jews. If you were not a Jew, you would not feel queasy? Your morality is quite bizarre, to say the least.
gotlucky:The threat of violence has to occur in the minds of the parties involved. If it does not, regardless of whether or not it was a possibility, it is not a threat of violence. If I were to threaten you, it would have to occur to me to threaten you.
Does it have to occur consciously? Does it have to occur in the minds of all parties? You always represent a threat of violence to me because you can, at any time, engage in violence. Just because it doesn't enter into your mind doesn't mean it doesn't enter mine.
gotlucky: It would also appear you don't know much about law or what God thinks either, yet you still make known to us your opinions.
I was asked for them.
gotlucky:From our discussion, it appears that you only value statutory law as law. That is, as long as it's written down on a piece of paper by someone with enough power, then it is law - even if it is unenforced.
That is because it is the only type of law which directly effects me. I have no concern with nullifying laws through disobedience or non-recognition nor do I acknowledge such attempts to do so. To me, people that do that are just breaking the law.
gotlucky:The problem here, is that you do not know about common law or customary law, both of which do not fit the definition you provided earlier. Furthermore, I believe that you actually do not know much about the history of common law or customary law, or even what societies/communities have used it or currently are using it today. You would greatly benefit if you were to research other systems of law, because as it stands now, you are very confused as to what law actually is.
I don't because I don't study that stuff nor do I really have any interest in doing so.
gotlucky:It appears that you do not know much about Judaism, though you claim to be a Jew. I am a former Jew, but I am now an atheist. If you truly believe in God and are a Jew, then you would know that Judaism has rules regarding slaves in the Torah (which is written by God if you are a Jew and believe in God). However, you would also know that slavery is taboo in modern Judaism. I suspect that at best, you are a reform Jew. It would probably be for the best if you just quit Judaism altogether because I can't imagine you actually researching Jewish thought on law and morality.
I am not, nor have I ever been a practictioner of Judaism the religion. I was born into a Jewish family. I look Jewish. That might have been enough in slave days to gain the ire of other white people, I do not really know. If not then it really doesn't matter to me.
gotlucky:Furthermore, it is bizarre that you would say that you feel queasy about slavery because of the history of Jews. If you were not a Jew, you would not feel queasy? Your morality is quite bizarre, to say the least.
No because I wouldn't fear that my fate was tied to that of the black slaves.
bloomj31: Does it have to occur consciously? Does it have to occur in the minds of all parties? You always represent a threat of violence to me because you can, at any time, engage in violence. Just because it doesn't enter into your mind doesn't mean it doesn't enter mine.
So what? We have already established that you threaten violence for all you disputes. However, there exist disputes where the parties involved do not threaten violence, implicitly or explicitly. That is the point. I am not making a statement about all of your disputes. I am making a statement about all disputes. I will restate it again: The threat of violence is not a necessary aspect to disputes.
bloomj31: I was asked for them.
Obviously that is not the only criteria for your response because I have asked you already for your reponse to the analogies that I put forth. Don't be obtuse.
bloomj31: That is because it is the only type of law which directly effects me. I have no concern with nullifying laws through disobedience or non-recognition nor do I acknowledge such attempts to do so. To me, people that do that are just breaking the law.
Common law does effect you. It effects you less than it used to, but it does effect you. And you make no attempts to learn about it.
bloomj31: I don't because I don't study that stuff nor do I really have any interest in doing so.
So why study statutory law? Your reason was that it effects you. So does common law. Yet you do not have an interest in that. I believe you do not really have an interest in law.
gotlucky: So what? We have already established that you threaten violence for all you disputes. However, there exist disputes where the parties involved do not threaten violence, implicitly or explicitly.
The mere presence of humans implies the possibility of violence because all humans are capable of violence. Your mere presence implies the possibility of violence. Just because it doesn't occur to you or anyone around you doesn't mean it's not still there. It just means you're oblivious. Neither you nor your girlfriend or any of your friends may consider yourselves capable of violence, but you all are. Your conscious mind may not focus on it, but that really doesn't matter.
Any and all disputes that involve humans necessarily involve the possibility of violence, from the simplest disagreement onward. You just don't think about it. Maybe your friends don't think about it. Maybe your girlfriend doesn't think about it. So you think you've escaped the reality that all humans are capable of violence at any time over any dispute. You have not.
gotlucky:So why study statutory law? Your reason was that it effects you. So does common law. Yet you do not have an interest in that. I believe you do not really have an interest in law.
I study statutory law because I find it interesting. I study the law so that I can try to obey it. I only have so many hours in the day and only so much energy to put towards study. I suppose that now that I think about it, I do study common law. Perhaps not to the extent that you do. I simply do not think about nullifying laws through non-compliance. To me that's just asking for trouble. The laws don't go away just because I might want them to.
No. For there to be a threat, it has to be conscious. Just because violence is a possibility does not mean that the threat of violence is necessary. I cannot threaten someone with violence if it does not occur to me to threaten them with violence. I am not claiming that it is not the case that all humans are capable of violence at any time over any dispute. I am claiming that the threat of violence is not a necessary aspect of a dispute. All I can see is that you are creating straw men and knocking them down.
Right, if your whole point is soething like:
I live in the US - I only care about how the US supreme court currently quotes statutory law - and I am going to apply that to every conversation on Mises.org a site named after a man who looked at the social sciences and social philosophy; I think you have entered the wrong site - this is probably why you're threads tend to go on ad infinitum without much being cleared up. It's two different languages
There is nothing wrong with legal positivism, at least half here (including myself) are probably legal positivists - but to just care about statutory laws as some meta - legal theory position is nonsensical - it is a position with only limited use. Even positivism presupposes custom.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Why does the threat have to be conscious? Why do both parties have to recognize it?
If I consider you a threat but you do not think you are a threat to me there's still the possibility of violence between us in the event of a dispute.
vive la insurrection: I think you have entered the wrong site - this is probably why you're threads tend to go on ad infinitum without much being cleared up.
I've been coming to this site for a couple years now. I know how this place works. It's actually become much more chill. Used to be a bunch of ban happy moderators, now it's whatever. I don't mind not clearing issues up. Where's the fun in that anyway? I suppose I could try to find a site where everyone agreed with me on everything but that's kinda boring imo.
I appreciate what you're trying to tell me, and I don't really disagree with you. I'm really just waiting for Guild Wars 2 to come out anyways. Maybe play Diablo 3.
EDIT: There's also something very charming about libertarians. I find the moralism interesting. The hatred for the state is...I don't even know how to describe it. The paranoia is funny sometimes. I don't fear the same things libertarians do and I find that fascinating.
Who said anything about God? This is more semantics - you and I clearly do not use the word "immoral" in the same way. Not all my word usages are the most common ones but they're at least among the recognized usages and I can articulate where I am using words in an unusual way. You seem to just have your own private definitions for every word. Have fun with that.
clayton:Just like there are right and wrong ways to build a shelter, there are right and wrong ways to interact with other human beings. The end in either case is always the same: my satisfaction. The majority of what people mean when they talk about "right and wrong" or "morality" is precisely this question of right and wrong ways to interact with other human beings. The key difference is that most discussion of morality leaves out the question to what end? The end is my satisfaction and rightness/wrongness of course of action is to be judged with respect to its suitability for bringing about my satisfaction. How should I treat others? In whatever way brings about my satisfaction.
K. So when you say slavery is immoral you mean it doesn't bring you satisfaction?
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, but what the forum is more designed for.
Just to be clear on what I am trying to say
I am saying
a)if you care or want to talk about how Supreme Justices intepret laws - that's fine. However, it has limited application here, as it just isn't a primary topic.
b) if you wish to discuss legal theory or social sciences you even better - that's exactly what this site is built for. Though something seems lost in translation on your posts (which may or may not be your fault)
c) If you wish to discuss ethics, so be it - but you can not mix ethics with legal theories (once again, this may not be your fault) - one is ethics, one is legal theory. If you are making a mistake here it is entering in an ethical conversation by quoting law - which just doesn't work - grammaticaly or logically whether you are a moralist or not. You have to stick roughly with your view might makes relevant and stick with that - the statutory law can only be used as some type of example at best - not an argument
hope that helps. It's hard for "exotic" views to come in and not get tangled in more "native" languages when they are outnumbered and bombarded by posts.
That's good advice I appreciate that thank you.
No, I mean it in the same sense as a medical doctor who says "this infectious disease is unhealthy" - slavery is a sickness of the social order. A social order with slavery is ill, there's something wrong with it. The health of a social order can be assessed in two different ways. The first and less interesting, is its suitability to self-propagation (reproductivity of its members).
The second and more interesting is the harmoniousness of the social order with the ends of individuals within it. If most or all people, in seeking their satisfaction, do so without injury to or from the social order, then this is a "healthy" social order. The ends of individuals are aligned with the environment in which they exist. But the modern environment has changed dramatically from that which obtained 10,000, 1,000 or even 100 years ago which has lead to a significant maladaptedness in the naive pursuit of one's ends (pursuit of what feels good, avoidance of what feels evil) to one's true ends (attainment of satisfaction within the modern environment).
This is not an indictment of social changes (we don't need to "reform society") nor of the individual (we don't need to "reform human beings"). However, there is a deficiency in the social mechanisms that perform "impedance matching" between the environment and the expectations of the individual: social norms, law, culture and custom, family traditions, etc. These social mechanisms are the very things responsible for propelling the rapid change in our environment - without them, humans would still be sleeping in cave and throwing hand-carved spears at wild boars on the Savanna, if that.
In the process, they have provided the "push-pull feedback" on the individual so that his appetites and phobias would be aligned with the environment, even as it has rapidly changed. It is my view that this mechanism in modern times is seriously deficient in ways that we can specifically identify and that this deficiency is responsible for the widespread malaise and depression in modern, wealthy society in a time when unprecedented numbers of human beings should be attaining the highest levels of flourishing and self-actualization ever achieved in history.
To bring it back to slavery, I think that slavery is one of these specifically identifiable deficiencies. When slavery is allowed and commonplace, it is indicative of a massive mismatch between the reality of the social order and the desires of the individual which, in turn, is indicative of a deficiency in the mechanisms that should be ameliorating such mismatches: law, culture and custom, social norms, family tradition, and so on. When I say "slavery is immoral", this is what I mean.
I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
bloomj31: Why does the threat have to be conscious? Why do both parties have to recognize it?
A person cannot threaten another without making a conscious effort to do so. Perhaps we have to define threat. From wiktionary on threat:
threat (plural threats) an expression of intent to injure or punish another. an indication of imminent danger. a person or object that is regarded as a danger; a menace.
threat (plural threats)
I have been using the first definition for this entire thread. Perhaps you have been using threat to mean "a menace"?
Regardless, my point has to do with definition one. A person cannot make "an expression of intent to injure...another" if he is not already conscious of making the threat. It is my belief that not every disagreement has an expression of intent - implicit or explicit - to injure another looming in the air. I have been in situations where there has been no expression of intent to injure but there was a disagreement.
bloomj31: If I consider you a threat but you do not think you are a threat to me there's still the possibility of violence between us in the event of a dispute.
Ah, it does appear that you have been using threat to mean "menace". Firstly, as I said above, it has nothing to do with my point. Secondly, we have already established your predilection for violence. You should probably stop using yourself as an example, as we are postulating situations where you are not present.
gotlucky:I have been in situations where there has been no expression of intent to injure but there was a disagreement. Semantics. But I suppose based on this definition you are right. In this case your ignorance of the "menace" every single human being potentially poses strengthens your argument.
gotlucky:I have been in situations where there has been no expression of intent to injure but there was a disagreement.
bloomj31: Semantics.
Semantics.
Definitions are important. There is no need to try and dismiss my point because you misunderstood it.
bloomj31: But I suppose based on this definition you are right.
But I suppose based on this definition you are right.
I accept your gracious concession.
bloomj31: In this case your ignorance of the "menace" every single human being potentially poses strengthens your argument.
In this case your ignorance of the "menace" every single human being potentially poses strengthens your argument.
Back to categorical statements, eh? I suppose I better start feeling threatened by every toddler that starts throwing a tantrum. You may wish to open a book on logic.
bloomj31:But I am the person I am now in large part, I believe, because of my environment. I've grown up in a time where slavery is seen as awful. But anything can be seen as awful. Would I have respected slavery laws? I have no idea. I don't find slavery particularly appealing now, that's for sure.
Logic is not time- or space-dependent. You've already essentially stated that you consider all laws to be worthy of respect because you presume they're backed by more power than you yourself can muster. That includes slavery laws, segregation and other discrimination laws, and laws requiring Jews to be hauled off to death camps. All of them - no exceptions.
bloomj31:When I use the word "respect" it's not really about honoring something. It's simply about acknowledging power. I did respect my 8th grade bullies. So much so that I went out of my way to avoid them. Power, to me, is always worthy of respect and fear.
It's one thing for you to want to readily acquiesce to power when you encounter it. It's another for you to want - if not expect or require - everyone else to do the same as well.