Wed. 10/05/19 18:08 EDT.post #95 bloomj31:I'm not saying that subjective value judgments aren't used to review laws, I'm saying that without power, those value judgments carry no weight, no practical significance whatsoever.For a very simple demonstration of this, I could say that all libertarians will now be killed because they are libertarians and libertarianism is against the law. But without the power to enforce this edict, I cannot make it so.What do you mean by "make it so"? Actually follow through and kill all those deemed "libertarians"? But you need neither "the power to enforce this edict" nor any law at all to kill. Without moral justification and hence popular acceptance, you have neither law nor compliance, only victims. Libertarianism would simply be driven "underground," and you'd have failed to "make it so." If compliance is a measure of "practical significance," surely such a law must be considered a failure. Is this not true of all bad laws (i.e. all laws that ignore morality)?I suppose my point is that it is morality that differentiates law from mere coercion. Your point seems to be that there really is no difference, that it's all just coercion. But if that's the case why have two different words for the same thing? And if morality is immaterial to law, why do people discuss it? I ask the questions rhetorically to suggest that what you are saying doesn't seem consistent with real life. If what you are saying were true, if coercion were sufficient to enforce compliance, then people wouldn't behave as though morality was important; they'd all just obey the law. bloomj31:The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.Perhaps your view, or your imagination, is limited? What about the concept of law as the explicit expression of popular morality? bloomj31:I disagree, I think power comes before ethics and morals because without power, the morals and ethics are irrelevant.One important difference between state-enforced law and thuggery is that the former enjoys popular moral sanction, while the latter does not. Hence, the state's coercive thugs can brutalize with impunity, whereas private thugs cannot.This reality tells me that you've got it backward.
bloomj31:I'm not saying that subjective value judgments aren't used to review laws, I'm saying that without power, those value judgments carry no weight, no practical significance whatsoever.For a very simple demonstration of this, I could say that all libertarians will now be killed because they are libertarians and libertarianism is against the law. But without the power to enforce this edict, I cannot make it so.
bloomj31:The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.
bloomj31:I disagree, I think power comes before ethics and morals because without power, the morals and ethics are irrelevant.
"What do you mean by "make it so"?"
I cannot give the order and have it followed by the cops. I don't have the authority to give the order.
"But you need neither "the power to enforce this edict" nor any law at all to kill"
To kill with impunity I do.
"Without moral justification and hence popular acceptance, you have neither law nor compliance, only victims"
Moral justification isn't required to gain popular acceptance for murder. All one needs is fear. If people were truly afraid of libertarians, it would seem worth it to kill all of you just to make sure you didn't do anything we didn't want you to do. I'm not able to manipulate the majority's mind so well that I can inspire fear like that because I don't have enough power or influence. But moral justification is definitely not necessary to get popular acceptance for murder.
"If compliance is a measure of practical significance then surely such a law would be considered a failure"
Only if I failed to kill all of you. But if I managed it, it would be a success.
"Is this not true of all bad laws?"
No law is ever going to get 100 percent compliance. But even the so-called "immoral" ones get applied sometimes and that's good enough for me.
"I suppose my point is that it is morality that differentiates law from coercion"
Well, it's moral justifications that make people feel ok about being coerced. But law is coercion. It's telling people what to do and what not to do. People just need to feel like there's a reason for it so intellectuals spend a great deal of time justifying things to make people feel better about being pushed around. Either way, they're still getting pushed around.
"Why have two words for the same thing?"
I dunno, Law implies codified rules of coercion. It's coercion all the same though, it's just structured and institutionalized.
"They'd all just obey the law"
Oh no, definitely not, some people's values will always disagree with the values of the law. And they'll resist. That's inevitable.
"What about the concept of law as the expression of popular morality?"
I think there's some truth to that but of course "popular" doesn't mean everyone agrees it just means a lot of people agree. The people who don't agree, if they have no power, have no influence over the law. Their values are not represented by the law but it doesn't matter. Therefore, law cannot be only an expression of "popular morality."
All you've pointed out is that reality is spun in such a way as to make people feel comfortable. But the law is still based on power. But lawmakers can't just say that, it would disturb people. So we sugarcoat things and tell people there's a justification when in reality none is really needed.
the city i used to live has signs that say littering fines up to 200 dollars.
this very city every week for years woudl leak stinking effluent out of its garbage trucks in the cul de sac i lived in.
the sun would heat it up and it would reek for days.
should i charge the city 200 buck per drop of stinking effluent??
if they sentenced someone chainging the sentence makes sentencing useless or not wiht meaning.
chopping up kids or raping children who conceive nothing close to reciprocal sex is terrible and soem formo of justice one truth has been determined should take place. but if its good enohjugh for sex offenders why not litterers too.
Thurs. 10/05/20 10:50 EDt.post #97 MMMark:What do you mean by "make it so"? bloomj31:I cannot give the order and have it followed by the cops. I don't have the authority to give the order.Precisely...and this is one important difference between the state's coercive thugs and private thugs. MMMark:But you need neither "the power to enforce this edict" nor any law at all to kill. bloomj31:To kill with impunity I do.Precisely...and it is morality, i.e., the popular belief that what you are doing is justified, that grants you that impunity. As you said, bloomj31:If people were truly afraid of libertarians, it would seem worth it to kill all of you... MMMark:If compliance is a measure of practical significance then surely such a law would be considered a failure. bloomj31:Only if I failed to kill all of you. But if I managed it, it would be a success.We're not communicating here, for some reason. To me, "compliance" means people obey your law, which means that you wouldn't have to kill anyone. If you managed to kill everyone, then your law would, obviously, be a 100% failure, because there had been 0% compliance. It would no longer be a law, only mass murder. MMMark:I suppose my point is that it is morality that differentiates law from coercion. bloomj31:Well, it's moral justifications that make people feel ok about being coerced.This is a contradiction. By definition, people don't "feel ok about being coerced." That's not what coercion is. That's like saying "people feel ok about something they don't feel ok about." bloomj31:But law is coercion. It's telling people what to do and what not to do.As a statement about the way things are, I agree with you, for the most part. But clearly, we are here not just to talk about "the way things are," but also to discuss the way things might be, could be, and possibly even should be. I invite you to participate. bloomj31:All you've pointed out is that reality is spun in such a way as to make people feel comfortable. But the law is still based on power.I've been trying to point out that, in my opinion, that power is "based on" morality, i.e., popular acceptance of power as morally justified. Without this, you'd have mass non-compliance and even outright defiance.All of the state's power rests ultimately on the popular belief that the state is good, or at the very least, inevitable.To challenge this belief is to "strike the root."The ideological revolution is also the most radical.
MMMark:What do you mean by "make it so"? bloomj31:I cannot give the order and have it followed by the cops. I don't have the authority to give the order.
bloomj31:I cannot give the order and have it followed by the cops. I don't have the authority to give the order.
MMMark:But you need neither "the power to enforce this edict" nor any law at all to kill. bloomj31:To kill with impunity I do.
bloomj31:To kill with impunity I do.
bloomj31:If people were truly afraid of libertarians, it would seem worth it to kill all of you...
MMMark:If compliance is a measure of practical significance then surely such a law would be considered a failure. bloomj31:Only if I failed to kill all of you. But if I managed it, it would be a success.
bloomj31:Only if I failed to kill all of you. But if I managed it, it would be a success.
MMMark:I suppose my point is that it is morality that differentiates law from coercion. bloomj31:Well, it's moral justifications that make people feel ok about being coerced.
bloomj31:Well, it's moral justifications that make people feel ok about being coerced.
bloomj31:But law is coercion. It's telling people what to do and what not to do.
bloomj31:All you've pointed out is that reality is spun in such a way as to make people feel comfortable. But the law is still based on power.