wilderness: Spideynw: Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone? Yes...
Spideynw: Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone?
Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone?
Yes...
Spideynw: Oh? So you have never ever copied a rental dvd or downloaded a song without first paying for it?
Oh? So you have never ever copied a rental dvd or downloaded a song without first paying for it?
Actually I never have. And when did copying intellectual property become a crime for a libertarian? I know there is a debate on whether or not this is stealing or not, but that's not the question is it? You've decided it is stealing. But if it isn't stealing and you do it, then it wouldn't be stealing.
wilderness: Spideynw: Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth? lol... Why should you have to? A cop isn't more moral because he's a cop. Individuals v. individuals. You're going to use a statist argument to try to counter a natural right argument...lol
Spideynw: Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?
Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?
lol... Why should you have to? A cop isn't more moral because he's a cop. Individuals v. individuals. You're going to use a statist argument to try to counter a natural right argument...lol
Spideynw: Obviously, you were wrong when you stated lying has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights. And no, I am not using a statist argument. I did not say you have to answer the cop, I was asking if it is OK to lie to the cop.
Obviously, you were wrong when you stated lying has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights. And no, I am not using a statist argument. I did not say you have to answer the cop, I was asking if it is OK to lie to the cop.
What does lying to a cop have to do with natural rights? Are you trying to say something you are not fully sharing here?
majevska: Come on man, enough with the psychologizing and emotional tirades about knives and Stalin.
Come on man, enough with the psychologizing and emotional tirades about knives and Stalin.
You advocate it. So either stick with your advocations or find a better way. It may appear that it is psychologizing and emotional tirades, but you're going on about how destroying property and stealing are good - so - deductively moral nihilist are on the slippery slope due to lack of practical wisdom on whether murdering is good or bad. Not my fault you're that way.
wilderness: Spideynw: majevska:Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good. And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls. It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution. It's funny, in the sad sense of the term, how moral nihilists like to focus on the satisfaction of crimes and advocate for criminals. They love to watch the blood drip. They are a sadistic, perverted, and thus cold-blooded bunch.
Spideynw: majevska:Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good. And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls. It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution.
majevska:Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.
And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls.
It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution.
It's funny, in the sad sense of the term, how moral nihilists like to focus on the satisfaction of crimes and advocate for criminals. They love to watch the blood drip. They are a sadistic, perverted, and thus cold-blooded bunch.
Huh?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
majevska: And just to be clear, you're the one who seems to have a "blood drip" fixation if anyone does. You're really starting to sound like you're in a fit of hysteria or something.
And just to be clear, you're the one who seems to have a "blood drip" fixation if anyone does. You're really starting to sound like you're in a fit of hysteria or something.
I'm not advocating for criminals. You are. Either stick with your advocations or find a better way to relate to others.
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: majevska:Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good. And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls. It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution. It's funny, in the sad sense of the term, how moral nihilists like to focus on the satisfaction of crimes and advocate for criminals. They love to watch the blood drip. They are a sadistic, perverted, and thus cold-blooded bunch. Huh?
Not you... majevska. If that makes more sense.
wilderness:Actually I never have. And when did copying intellectual property become a crime for a libertarian? I know there is a debate on whether or not this is stealing or not, but that's not the question is it? You've decided it is stealing. But if it isn't stealing and you do it, then it wouldn't be stealing.
My point is that some people do think this is stealing. I do not, but there are those that do, and would say it is stealing. And since you say stealing is always wrong, you must think that copying a cd is immoral.
wilderness:What does lying to a cop have to do with natural rights? Are you trying to say something you are not fully sharing here?
I am saying there is nothing necessarily immoral about lying to a cop asking you questions that he should not be asking. However, you seem to think there is nothing immoral about lying whatsoever! Apparently, you think if someone signs a contract, but has no intent of keeping it, that there was nothing immoral about it, since lying is never immoral, it is just a "vice".
Spideynw: wilderness:Actually I never have. And when did copying intellectual property become a crime for a libertarian? I know there is a debate on whether or not this is stealing or not, but that's not the question is it? You've decided it is stealing. But if it isn't stealing and you do it, then it wouldn't be stealing. My point is that some people do think this is stealing. I do not, but there are those that do, and would say it is stealing. And since you say stealing is always wrong, you must think that copying a cd is immoral.
No. I mean stealing defined according to natural law. I'm not talking about any arbitrary laws that any nut-job can come along and declare.
Spideynw: wilderness:What does lying to a cop have to do with natural rights? Are you trying to say something you are not fully sharing here? I am saying there is nothing necessarily immoral about lying to a cop asking you questions that he should not be asking. However, you seem to think there is nothing immoral about lying whatsoever!
I am saying there is nothing necessarily immoral about lying to a cop asking you questions that he should not be asking. However, you seem to think there is nothing immoral about lying whatsoever!
I don't know. It's not a natural rights issue, as I pointed out, which is what I was originally referring to. You brought up lying. I didn't. So I don't see what this has to do with the original comment about stealing and natural rights.
Let me use a different example. If someone is given a government monopoly, is it immoral to steal from that person?
Jacob Bloom:However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me.
Can you give me some reference to what you require, force wise, in order to have society and I will talk to you about it...
Jacob Bloom:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
The logical deduction against fascism is morality, it has to do with violating property rights....
Jacob Bloom:But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.
Fair enough...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
wilderness:I don't know. It's not a natural rights issue,
How is the right to say whatever one wants to not a natural rights issue?
majevska:That is the basic idea of (some forms of) moral nihilism, that there is no imperative to consider anyone's satisfaction but your own, unless their satisfaction relates to yours of course. See, all forms of morality necessitate that the individual consider something other than his own satisfaction
I doubt you actually practice moral nihilism. When was the last time you raped someone? There's lost of satisfaction to be gained from that, I'm sure, and a moral nihilist would have no moral qualms with the act.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Spideynw: wilderness:I don't know. It's not a natural rights issue, How is the right to say whatever one wants to not a natural rights issue?
I think wilderness means it is not a natural rights issue for the "recipient" of a lie, which he is correct, freedom of speech is just that, free, whether or not you choose to believe it, act on it and find the speech to be false is irrelevant as to a natural rights issue....
wilderness:Whipitgood had a good post responding to you, but I'm sure you don't have the explanatory power to figure it out.
I appriciate the tag-in to the debate, but he apparently does claim to be a moral nihilist.
What exactly do you say to someone like that?
Spideynw: wilderness:Actually I never have. And when did copying intellectual property become a crime for a libertarian? I know there is a debate on whether or not this is stealing or not, but that's not the question is it? You've decided it is stealing. But if it isn't stealing and you do it, then it wouldn't be stealing. Let me use a different example. If someone is given a government monopoly, is it immoral to steal from that person?
How would that stealing take place? What's the context? If you mean by copying dvd's and the government currently says, "That's against the law." I say it's immoral for the government to back up their arbitrary morality with coercion. It doesn't meet the liberty standard, which provides equal potential flourishing for each individual (it is not arbitrary). Now I could go ahead and copy the dvd and if I get caught I'll probably have to pay a fine. It's the difference between a libertarian society and a coercive society that fringes innocent human action to decisions of brute force. The free market and civil society knows better.
wilderness:How would that stealing take place? What's the context? If you mean by copying dvd's and the government currently says, "That's against the law." I say it's immoral for the government to back up their arbitrary morality with coercion. It doesn't meet the liberty standard, which provides equal potential flourishing for each individual (it is not arbitrary). Now I could go ahead and copy the dvd and if I get caught I'll probably have to pay a fine. It's the difference between a libertarian society and a coercive society that fringes innocent human action to decisions of brute force. The free market and civil society knows better.
I mean, let's say a musician or owner of a power company made a lot of money because they were given a monopoly. Is it immoral to then break into their homes and steal from them?
Spideynw: wilderness:How would that stealing take place? What's the context? If you mean by copying dvd's and the government currently says, "That's against the law." I say it's immoral for the government to back up their arbitrary morality with coercion. It doesn't meet the liberty standard, which provides equal potential flourishing for each individual (it is not arbitrary). Now I could go ahead and copy the dvd and if I get caught I'll probably have to pay a fine. It's the difference between a libertarian society and a coercive society that fringes innocent human action to decisions of brute force. The free market and civil society knows better. I mean, let's say a musician or owner of a power company made a lot of money because they were given a monopoly. Is it immoral to then break into their homes and steal from them?
Umm Yes..... The government that created the monopoly, not so much....
Harry Felker:I think wilderness means it is not a natural rights issue for the "recipient" of a lie, which he is correct, freedom of speech is just that, free, whether or not you choose to believe it, act on it and find the speech to be false is irrelevant as to a natural rights issue....
And I am just saying that one should not necessarily be punished for lying. Like defamation laws. We should get rid of those.
Ok. It depends who's property you are on. So I left that hanging. If somebody was in my house talking about women in a arbitrary perverted manner (arbitrary meaning I'm defining what is perverted and what is not), then I would ask them to leave. I think it's a vice to be around people that talk that way. It's distasteful, especially considering it's my house, I have a two year old son, and my wife is here. Does this mean the guest can go and get the law? No. It's my property and I didn't initiate any physical coercion upon his life (person).
You lying to a cop, I don't see how that fits into natural rights. You lied. Ok. And? Do you see what I'm saying?
whipitgood: wilderness:Whipitgood had a good post responding to you, but I'm sure you don't have the explanatory power to figure it out. I appriciate the tag-in to the debate, but he apparently does claim to be a moral nihilist. What exactly do you say to someone like that?
I admittedly get annoyed. Having no practical wisdom they are destined to die in the hands of somebody conducting self-defense as they hedonistically run through the streets pillaging. I guess my annoyance is due to I care. I care about them. I care about the people they would rape, steal, or murder in seeing no wrong in such acts. I care more about the innocents and feel empathy for the deranged moral nihilists.
I think your post was good. So not much more can be said. You were spot on.
I guess not much can be said other than social justice (tar and feather their reputation). But that's a choice I've made and social justice isn't always the path to take, but I'm disguised by these people at the moment.
wilderness:You lying to a cop, I don't see how that fits into natural rights. You lied. Ok. And? Do you see what I'm saying?
The thing is, you do not believe lying is immoral. I don't either. I do not believe in morality. So I do not think we have a dispute here.
whipitgood: majevska:That is the basic idea of (some forms of) moral nihilism, that there is no imperative to consider anyone's satisfaction but your own, unless their satisfaction relates to yours of course. See, all forms of morality necessitate that the individual consider something other than his own satisfaction I doubt you actually practice moral nihilism. When was the last time you raped someone? There's lost of satisfaction to be gained from that, I'm sure, and a moral nihilist would have no moral qualms with the act.
Rape is no more an imperative for moral nihilists than drinking 7-up is. So far I've stayed away from rape because I estimate it would be a net loss of satisfaction.
That might be more tough of a question than I might give consideration to. I fall back on the rational NAP. I think there are direct actions that are options that do not involve stealing and home invasion. If somebody really felt strongly about all this, then that person could do a sit down and disrupt Congress until they rid the monopolies they coercively hand out. It is the people's building. So if they came in with coercion to remove the people sitting down disrupting the assemblage, then self-defense could be enacted.
What do you think?
Hey Jacob, I don't know if you are still reading this since you asked a question about morality and this will lead to basically all out war lol. But since you put out the olive branch I will too. You said you don't experience anything like morality, I would like to help you see this is not true. Morality is defined as how one should act. There is no universal code written in the stars for man to be sure, but there is a universal morality of sorts. It has to do with goal oriented behavior, when you want something you set about trying to get it. This is setting a goal, and setting a goal leads to morality, a way you "should" act to achieve your goal. All morality means at its base is that man has a sense of planning and acting in a way to achieve his goals. Goal selection is an evolutionary trait and your ancestors were subjected to natures hand in culling the poor goal selections. For example the man that doesn't act logical is sure to die and so on. The definition of a secular morality, that is a morality that proves the non aggression principle is a evolutionary preferred strategy, has been attempted many times and I suggest you devout many hours to its contemplation. Good luck.
Spideynw: Harry Felker:I think wilderness means it is not a natural rights issue for the "recipient" of a lie, which he is correct, freedom of speech is just that, free, whether or not you choose to believe it, act on it and find the speech to be false is irrelevant as to a natural rights issue.... And I am just saying that one should not necessarily be punished for lying. Like defamation laws. We should get rid of those.
I agree. Lying is not of natural rights. Moral values that are not natural rights are plenty but the morality of natural rights is limited and fosters liberty.
Harry Felker: Spideynw: I mean, let's say a musician or owner of a power company made a lot of money because they were given a monopoly. Is it immoral to then break into their homes and steal from them? Umm Yes.....
Spideynw: I mean, let's say a musician or owner of a power company made a lot of money because they were given a monopoly. Is it immoral to then break into their homes and steal from them?
Umm Yes.....
I don't think so.
Spideynw: wilderness:You lying to a cop, I don't see how that fits into natural rights. You lied. Ok. And? Do you see what I'm saying? The thing is, you do not believe lying is immoral. I don't either. I do not believe in morality. So I do not think we have a dispute here.
Morality is about simply about good and bad and my signature states what that is. Lying is a moral issue, but a very weak one. Weak enough that it does not need to be conflated to natural rights and thus justice. Whether lying is good or bad depends on the situation. Somebody could lie about another's business, and this doesn't mean justice needs to step in, but it could still be bad for that business. So the business would simply have to work harder to overcome the lying.
twistedbydsign99: Hey Jacob, I don't know if you are still reading this since you asked a question about morality and this will lead to basically all out war lol. But since you put out the olive branch I will too. You said you don't experience anything like morality, I would like to help you see this is not true. Morality is defined as how one should act. There is no universal code written in the stars for man to be sure, but there is a universal morality of sorts. It has to do with goal oriented behavior, when you want something you set about trying to get it. This is setting a goal, and setting a goal leads to morality, a way you "should" act to achieve your goal. All morality means at its base is that man has a sense of planning and acting in a way to achieve his goals. Goal selection is an evolutionary trait and your ancestors were subjected to natures hand in culling the poor goal selections. For example the man that doesn't act logical is sure to die and so on. The definition of a secular morality, that is a morality that proves the non aggression principle is a evolutionary preferred strategy, has been attempted many times and I suggest you devout many hours to its contemplation. Good luck.
Very good post. Morality is common sense. Your definition here is excellent! Thank you for bringing this up.
Spideynw: Harry Felker: Spideynw: I mean, let's say a musician or owner of a power company made a lot of money because they were given a monopoly. Is it immoral to then break into their homes and steal from them? Umm Yes..... I don't think so.
Why? Are you claiming their possession are yours somehow?
Ok.....
I agree....
I will go further to say blackmail is not a crime either
Harry Felker:Why? Are you claiming their possession are yours somehow?
I am saying that since their wealth was obtained through unjust means, that they therefore should not have claim to it.
I understand the issue is much more complicated than that, I am just saying that their claim to their wealth is pretty weak, IMO. They used government force to obtain it.
wilderness:Morality is common sense.
If this were so, then there would not be so many proponents of government...
Nerditarian: Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?We don't. Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom. Psst nonsense! Libertarian morals stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini from gaining control and violating others right to individual choice. You should not have a choice to be a slaveowner. Why? Because being a slave owner deprives others of freedom and choice. You should not have a choice to be an axe murderer. Why? Because being an axe murderer deprives others of life and therefore the choice of how to live it. You should not have the choice to walk into your neighbors home eat all the food he has and take a crap on his carpet. Why? Because that deprives him of freedom and choice.I can go on like this all day, but I won't. However, let's adopt a messiness and inefficiency standard. Isn't a society where slavery creates less efficient workers and people have to fear being murdered by axe murderers and people have to worry about you sneaking into their house to eat their food and crap on their carpet both a more troubled/messy society and a less economically efficient society? Therefore shouldn't we illegalize rights violations of this sort in order to create a efficient and less messy society? So you can adopt a pseudo-pro-rights position on the basis of creating a less messy and more efficient society.
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?We don't. Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?We don't.
Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom.
Psst nonsense! Libertarian morals stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini from gaining control and violating others right to individual choice.
You should not have a choice to be a slaveowner. Why? Because being a slave owner deprives others of freedom and choice. You should not have a choice to be an axe murderer. Why? Because being an axe murderer deprives others of life and therefore the choice of how to live it. You should not have the choice to walk into your neighbors home eat all the food he has and take a crap on his carpet. Why? Because that deprives him of freedom and choice.I can go on like this all day, but I won't.
However, let's adopt a messiness and inefficiency standard. Isn't a society where slavery creates less efficient workers and people have to fear being murdered by axe murderers and people have to worry about you sneaking into their house to eat their food and crap on their carpet both a more troubled/messy society and a less economically efficient society? Therefore shouldn't we illegalize rights violations of this sort in order to create a efficient and less messy society?
So you can adopt a pseudo-pro-rights position on the basis of creating a less messy and more efficient society.
Any time you illegalize something you will need an institution that can enforce those rules. And that institution needs to embody FEAR. Fear is a powerful tool of control. I think everyone can see that the anarchist private court system is a weak one because it's not very scary. I mean...the police are scary. I fear them. The army is scary, I fear it. Private courts and cops aren't as scary, I don't really fear them.
You also have to understand that the Natural rights argument in the Constitution explicitly says those rights are granted by our Creator. I don't think there is a God. So you will need to use force to uphold these rights, not a philosophical argument.
I say that instead of arguing that natural rights exist, we should argue that a system runs more efficiently when everyone is a free to act in their own interests as much as possible without too much coercion at any point. Someone is always going to be trying to use fear to get others to do what they want. It's part of human nature. You aren't going to get rid of that by making "natural rights" your central argument. Coercion will always be an effective means of getting what one wants. As long as that's true, no system is going to be able to completely eradicate it. I studied to be a lawyer for like three years, I'm telling you: laws are just words on a piece of paper unless someone actually has the power to enforce them and enforce them rigorously and harshly.
Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are all in separate categories in terms of how they violated rights. I'm reading a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg about this, I suggest you check it out. Those three men used different methods of justifying coercion.
Spideynw: Harry Felker:Why? Are you claiming their possession are yours somehow? I am saying that since their wealth was obtained through unjust means, that they therefore should not have claim to it. I understand the issue is much more complicated than that, I am just saying that their claim to their wealth is pretty weak, IMO. They used government force to obtain it.
Why should you though?
Spideynw: wilderness:Morality is common sense. If this were so, then there would not be so many proponents of government...
I have this to say about common sense....
But the way I go about achieving my goals may be undesirable to some. Goal setting is inherently logical. "What do I want?" "Ok, this is what I want, how do I get it?" "What's the most efficient way of getting what I want?" "Ok, I do that now." Nowhere in this process does morality enter the picture. Morality is a set of subjective values that say what is and is not allowed, not "what do I want and how do I get it?" I think of morals are a more circuitous and unreliable route of making decisions. Logic is a straight line.
For instance, stealing might be the most effective and efficient way for me to get what I want. Or murder might. Consider Ahmadinejad. The simplest way to get rid of him is to kill him. Not to reason with him, not to negotiate but to go in there and get rid of him. This is simple "goal setting and achieving" logic. I leave it to you to decide whether this path is moral or not.
Despite the criticisms that are usually leveled against "immoral" people, they are often the best at getting things done. Think Hitler. He killed six million Jews. Morality didn't stop him. He got done what he wanted to get done.
Jacob Bloom: Any time you illegalize something you will need an institution that can enforce those rules. And that institution needs to embody FEAR. Fear is a powerful tool of control. I think everyone can see that the anarchist private court system is a weak one because it's not very scary. I mean...the police are scary. I fear them. The army is scary, I fear it. Private courts and cops aren't as scary, I don't really fear them. You also have to understand that the Natural rights argument in the Constitution explicitly says those rights are granted by our Creator. I don't think there is a God. So you will need to use force to uphold these rights, not a philosophical argument. I say that instead of arguing that natural rights exist, we should argue that a system runs more efficiently when everyone is a free to act in their own interests as much as possible without too much coercion at any point. Someone is always going to be trying to use fear to get others to do what they want. It's part of human nature. You aren't going to get rid of that by making "natural rights" your central argument. Coercion will always be an effective means of getting what one wants. As long as that's true, no system is going to be able to completely eradicate it. I studied to be a lawyer for like three years, I'm telling you: laws are just words on a piece of paper unless someone actually has the power to enforce them and enforce them rigorously and harshly. Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are all in separate categories in terms of how they violated rights. I'm reading a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg about this, I suggest you check it out. Those three men used different methods of justifying coercion.
Jacob,
Since you are open to think about it....
Government is not necessary for law, enforcement, or adjudication
Rape isn't a moral decision. It's a profit and loss decision. Rape, despite being very high on the power and control and instant gratification meter is also very high on the risk meter. So...it's just not worth it to me right now. Morality would never stop me from raping someone, simple financial and economics calculations do.
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom: Any time you illegalize something you will need an institution that can enforce those rules. And that institution needs to embody FEAR. Fear is a powerful tool of control. I think everyone can see that the anarchist private court system is a weak one because it's not very scary. I mean...the police are scary. I fear them. The army is scary, I fear it. Private courts and cops aren't as scary, I don't really fear them. You also have to understand that the Natural rights argument in the Constitution explicitly says those rights are granted by our Creator. I don't think there is a God. So you will need to use force to uphold these rights, not a philosophical argument. I say that instead of arguing that natural rights exist, we should argue that a system runs more efficiently when everyone is a free to act in their own interests as much as possible without too much coercion at any point. Someone is always going to be trying to use fear to get others to do what they want. It's part of human nature. You aren't going to get rid of that by making "natural rights" your central argument. Coercion will always be an effective means of getting what one wants. As long as that's true, no system is going to be able to completely eradicate it. I studied to be a lawyer for like three years, I'm telling you: laws are just words on a piece of paper unless someone actually has the power to enforce them and enforce them rigorously and harshly. Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are all in separate categories in terms of how they violated rights. I'm reading a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg about this, I suggest you check it out. Those three men used different methods of justifying coercion. Jacob, Since you are open to think about it.... Chapter 12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts Government is not necessary for law, enforcement, or adjudication
Government may not be necessary, but it is certainly better at getting the job done. This is why we have common law. Think of natural selection. Do you really think we'd be on the path we're on right now if it wasn't the most effective one?
Vitor: Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?We don't. Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom. Reality limits choice. I cant chose to travel above speed of light. C'mon, you are not even try to come with more than half-assed arguments.
Reality limits choice. I cant chose to travel above speed of light.
C'mon, you are not even try to come with more than half-assed arguments.
Exactly. Reality is the best limit on choice, not morality. Reality is best understood by logical cause and effect. Morality...has no cause and effect, making it useless for our purposes.
wilderness:Lying is a moral issue, but a very weak one.
Really? So signing a contract with no intent at keeping it is a weak issue?