I had a converasation with a man on another site, and posed this as an argument to him, I was wondering what you all thought about this....
I will note that this turned the tide of thought off limited government for him...
Harry Felker: Normal 0 Playing Tag.... When we were kids, many of us had played games in groups; I know I played outside with friends more than anything else at this time. There were inherent rules to these games, and if one did not know them, it was very easy to find them out, you could just ask, you could reason them out, but these games were really almost hardwired into us. There were few variations, but the game fundamentally remained the same. There was no rule master with a cadre of enforcers ensuring rules and standards were met, when such a person identified himself as such, we as children ostracized him and went on with our lives. When bullies came around, we dealt with them without the use of an enforcement agency and we fought back if necessary. And if someone wanted to break the rules because of special privilege we often did not play with them any longer. Social interaction is not more complicated as an adult than it is as a child; you interact with people everyday, and make choices based on them. Do you not murder, steal, rape and forcibly dominate your fellow man because the law says so, or because you recognize that there is something inherently wrong with such an action? Do you not defend yourself in the face of an adversary, because there is nothing inherently wrong with submission, or are you expectant that society will vindicate you? If you think this is inherently wrong, do you believe you are some sainted one that is unique, that everyone else, or the majority of those around you are baseless animals? Human nature derives a natural law, all human ethical choices are made based on such, human morality is based on such, and if you disagree that the majority of humans are moral, well then, you are saying that you are not moral, as morals are a general consensus term. I postulate that you do not offer aggression to your fellow man because you believe it is inherently wrong, as the majority does, I postulate that you also defend yourself rather than submit to an adversary, because submission is inherently wrong. Now the only question is, am I right and this is because the majority believe in a natural law, based on our nature, and all our ethical choices, our morality, is based on such, or is it that you are not moral, that is living within the norms of the majority?
Normal 0
Playing Tag.... When we were kids, many of us had played games in groups; I know I played outside with friends more than anything else at this time. There were inherent rules to these games, and if one did not know them, it was very easy to find them out, you could just ask, you could reason them out, but these games were really almost hardwired into us. There were few variations, but the game fundamentally remained the same. There was no rule master with a cadre of enforcers ensuring rules and standards were met, when such a person identified himself as such, we as children ostracized him and went on with our lives. When bullies came around, we dealt with them without the use of an enforcement agency and we fought back if necessary. And if someone wanted to break the rules because of special privilege we often did not play with them any longer. Social interaction is not more complicated as an adult than it is as a child; you interact with people everyday, and make choices based on them. Do you not murder, steal, rape and forcibly dominate your fellow man because the law says so, or because you recognize that there is something inherently wrong with such an action? Do you not defend yourself in the face of an adversary, because there is nothing inherently wrong with submission, or are you expectant that society will vindicate you? If you think this is inherently wrong, do you believe you are some sainted one that is unique, that everyone else, or the majority of those around you are baseless animals? Human nature derives a natural law, all human ethical choices are made based on such, human morality is based on such, and if you disagree that the majority of humans are moral, well then, you are saying that you are not moral, as morals are a general consensus term. I postulate that you do not offer aggression to your fellow man because you believe it is inherently wrong, as the majority does, I postulate that you also defend yourself rather than submit to an adversary, because submission is inherently wrong. Now the only question is, am I right and this is because the majority believe in a natural law, based on our nature, and all our ethical choices, our morality, is based on such, or is it that you are not moral, that is living within the norms of the majority?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker:When we were kids, many of us had played games in groups; I know I played outside with friends more than anything else at this time. There were inherent rules to these games, and if one did not know them, it was very easy to find them out, you could just ask, you could reason them out, but these games were really almost hardwired into us. There were few variations, but the game fundamentally remained the same. There was no rule master with a cadre of enforcers ensuring rules and standards were met, when such a person identified himself as such, we as children ostracized him and went on with our lives. When bullies came around, we dealt with them without the use of an enforcement agency and we fought back if necessary. And if someone wanted to break the rules because of special privilege we often did not play with them any longer.
I have completely different experiences with respect to almost every single point above.
Harry Felker:Social interaction is not more complicated as an adult than it is as a child; you interact with people everyday, and make choices based on them. Do you not murder, steal, rape and forcibly dominate your fellow man because the law says so, or because you recognize that there is something inherently wrong with such an action?
You left out a third option: individuals do not do so because doing so would mean being kicked out of society, and they realize that cooperation in society is how they can prosper.
Harry Felker:Now the only question is, am I right and this is because the majority believe in a natural law, based on our nature, and all our ethical choices, our morality, is based on such, or is it that you are not moral, that is living within the norms of the majority?
There is absolutely no evidence to support this. If you are going to make claims about what the "majority" believes, you actually do need some evidence, and statistics to bolster your claim.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:There is absolutely no evidence to support this. If you are going to make claims about what the "majority" believes, you actually do need some evidence, and statistics to bolster your claim.
The evidence is that we are not all Vikings....
I understand that you have some need to reject anything outside of the box of your statism preference, but of you are going to request something of me, provide the requested information that backs up your argument...
You can claim I have a baseless assertion all you want, but you use a baseless assertion when you are not providing statistics that you want from me that prove me wrong....
It is my word against yours until someone comes up with facts...
So until you can come up with something that proves me wrong, reason dictates that the majority believes as I see it, or else society would be a violent place that no consented actions occur, only coerced ones....
laminustacitus:I have completely different experiences with respect to almost every single point above.
That is sad.... And that helps explain why you are the way you are....
laminustacitus:You left out a third option: individuals do not do so because doing so would mean being kicked out of society, and they realize that cooperation in society is how they can prosper.
Apparently you did not understand what ostracized meant, in the snippet above? You know that event that did not happen in your experience....
Well, I guess I should mention that this would be evidence of a consensus on the part of the majority, indirectly admitting that the majority would look as these action poorly, are you going to "make claims about what the "majority" believes" without providing a statistic?
How Ironic...
laminustacitus: Harry Felker:Social interaction is not more complicated as an adult than it is as a child; you interact with people everyday, and make choices based on them. Do you not murder, steal, rape and forcibly dominate your fellow man because the law says so, or because you recognize that there is something inherently wrong with such an action? You left out a third option: individuals do not do so because doing so would mean being kicked out of society, and they realize that cooperation in society is how they can prosper.
Sure there's options, but all civil people that I've ever met do not break the law shown in Harry's post above cause society says so, but rather it's because there are actually nice people. Quaint isn't it? The simple pleasures of life. Civil people are most of the people I've ever met in my whole life.
I have met criminals though once they get away with breaking the law they have a very hard time stopping and continue to break the law. These criminals usually say often, "as long as I don't get caught". Now of course these are low level crimes that in a libertarian society would be permitted - other than stealing. I've met thieves and they have voiced to me numerous times they do it cause they don't get caught. Well, those ones did get caught or else I wouldn't have seen them at the job I had. But they usually went on doing these actions again mainly because of their neighborhoods. Peer pressure to commit crimes is very high in some places. These youth didn't grow up thinking they would do harm. They never really thought about it. But their situations back home lead them in such directions. A baby in a criminal world. The odds are set against them from the get-go usually. I've talked to them. Seen their pictures of fun Christmas', Birthday parties, visiting their extended family, and simply having fun as kids. But as they would tell me as they got older the older people in their community had a different plan for them. They fall into the trap of crime life. Their communities engineer this upon them. Now that's what it seemed to me and many others that worked with me after meeting numerous youth. Their backgrounds of family and community sucker them in.
Harry Felker:I understand that you have some need to reject anything outside of the box of your statism preference, but of you are going to request something of me, provide the requested information that backs up your argument...
No, I am arguing that if you want to asser that the majority believes in an opinion that you actually prove that the majority do hold that opinion. In addition, an example the classic mises forum tactic: if you don't like what the other person is saying, call it statist as if that invalidates it.
Harry Felker:You can claim I have a baseless assertion all you want, but you use a baseless assertion when you are not providing statistics that you want from me that prove me wrong....
I made no assertion whatsoever. I just displayed holes in your reasoning.
Harry Felker:It is my word against yours until someone comes up with facts...
I never actually made a point, I never claimed what the majority believe it, but you did, and therefore you must substantiate your claim with some evidence.
Harry Felker:So until you can come up with something that proves me wrong, reason dictates that the majority believes as I see it, or else society would be a violent place that no consented actions occur, only coerced ones....
"Reason"? You are claiming that it must be A, or B here. However, it may very well be C. If you really want another thesis I would suggest reading Chapter 8 of Human Action, which I alluded to in my previous post.
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:I have completely different experiences with respect to almost every single point above. That is sad.... And that helps explain why you are the way you are....
I don't really care about your opinions about me, please stay on topic.
Harry Felker:Apparently you did not understand what ostracized meant, in the snippet above? You know that event that did not happen in your experience....
You didn't get my point: man need not have a sense of "good" instilled in him in order to have a functioning society.
Harry Felker:Well, I guess I should mention that this would be evidence of a consensus on the part of the majority, indirectly admitting that the majority would look as these action poorly, are you going to "make claims about what the "majority" believes" without providing a statistic?
It need not be the majority, a small minority can made life very unpleasent for an individual. Ergo, this is absolutely no evidence in support of what you just said.