Current Events

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

MMMark — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:50:40 GMT

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.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

cret — Thu, 20 May 2010 06:49:28 GMT

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.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

bloomj31 — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:22 GMT

"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.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

MMMark — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:08:07 GMT

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.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

bloomj31 — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:56:52 GMT

"I would agree and disagree. You're right that judgement without power carries no weight in the legal system, you're wrong in that people with the views espoused here are inherently powerless. They are merely out numbered at the time and so over powered. Their views do not lack backing though."

Fair enough.

@JakobM, you must do what the law says, but there is no fuhrer. In fact, our executive doesn't really make laws. That's the Congress's job.

Also, I've never said everything is ok.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

wilderness — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:31:44 GMT

JakobM:
This is no different than talking to a gestapo officer.

"You must do what the führer says"

Now be polite to the gestapo officer. Remain intellectual and don't forget to be touchie, feelie as he talks about his gun, and whips it around and shows it to everybody on numerous occassions as he is sooo powerful with that phallus lookin' thingy. You wouldn't want to appear uncivil in the gestapo officers presence. Let's be nice to those that support criminality and immoral behavior because ya wouldn't want to get the natives restless.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

Sieben — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:39:12 GMT

bloomj31:
I understand talking about the undesirability of particular laws, but I do not see how it can possibly take precedence over the question of authority.

Because the question of authority is ideaological. You can only see the very short term where the state uses violence to preserve its foothold. As the quotation explains, and apparently you didn't read, the state cannot survive any length of time without *some* political philosophy to lend plausibility to its position.

bloomj31:
I do not care about "everyone's benefit"

Then you cannot sell your ideology. Practically no one will be interested in your opinion then. Opinions of intellectuals matter as stipulated in the quote.

bloomj31:
The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.

Law has no intrinsic purpose. There is only the purpose of man.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

JakobM — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:26:29 GMT

This is no different than talking to a gestapo officer.

"You must do what the führer says"

Of course, as long as atrocities are expressed using fake politeness and hypocrisy everything is OK.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

xahrx — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:40:06 GMT

"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." - bloomj31

I would agree and disagree. You're right that judgement without power carries no weight in the legal system, you're wrong in that people with the views espoused here are inherently powerless. They are merely out numbered at the time and so over powered. Their views do not lack backing though.

"If morals and ethics really were more important, libertarians would be in charge of making laws, but this is not so."

Again I disagree. I think you're conflating decisive with important. Power is the deciding factor, but even the powerful feel the need to morally and ethically justify their laws.

"It's not possible, in a legal sense, for morals or ethics to matter more than power because while power/might are preconditions for law, logical and rational moral values and ethics are not."

Incorrect. In our system power is the decisive attribute. Other systems of law like private law, have been postulated and even exist to a certain extent in some places.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

bloomj31 — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:31:29 GMT

"Do you not know why its important to discuss the the overall disutility of particular laws? Why its important to be able to explain how anarcho capitalist law will work to the benefit of everyone? Sheesh."

I understand talking about the undesirability of particular laws, but I do not see how it can possibly take precedence over the question of authority.

Moreover, I am not primarily interested in laws that will "work for the benefit of everyone," I am primarily interested in laws that are enforced regularly, with a single set of institutions deciding what the substance of those laws shall be to avoid too many disputes over power. I do not care about "everyone's benefit" because I do not see that as being the fundamental purpose of law.

The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

bloomj31 — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:24:38 GMT

@Xahrx and Mark,

I disagree, I think power comes before ethics and morals because without power, the morals and ethics are irrelevant.

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. If, however, I had the power to do it, I could do it, and there would be nothing that could stop me except for an opposing force against me. So power comes first, everything else is second.

Another practical demonstration of how morals and ethics comes second is to see how libertarians have been marginalized despite having the most rational, moral and logical arguments because libertarians are a minority and have relatively little influence or power. If morals and ethics really were more important, libertarians would be in charge of making laws, but this is not so.

So, tying it back to the ruling, it has been ruled that the Congress has the authority to make laws such as this. Unless there is some great uprising against this law (which I doubt), there will be no power that rivals Congress. Therefore, the law will be sustained and enforced. If there is an uprising against this law, even if it's value based, the only way things will be changed is with rivaling force. Either way, morals and ethics will take a backseat to power as they always have and always will. It's not possible, in a legal sense, for morals or ethics to matter more than power because while power/might are preconditions for law, logical and rational moral values and ethics are not.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

xahrx — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:08:04 GMT

"The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power." - bloomj31

This is not correct. What is required for a law to be a law is power and enough aquiesence on the part of the populace such that the law is tolerated. Otherwise the public or competing authorities can undermine enforcement and even render a law completely void.

It is also not correct to say law and morality are totally separate. Ethics and morality both inform law even though they are not the same thing as the law. And law is subserviant to them. Law is subject to ethical and moral review, ethics and morals are not subject to legal restrictions.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

xahrx — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:50:26 GMT

"It's true but does he really think we don't realize this? Civilized people attempt to justify punishment." - E.R. Olovetto

True, but then my guess at least would be that his point is how do you civilize the legal system when you're surrounded by very uncivilized types who seem to like using the government to bash each other over the head? Setting up a theoretical basis for an Anarcho Capitalist or Minarchist world is one thing, what's the way from here to there though? How do you get positive law to more or less match a system of ethics and morals based on property rights? In the end it would be a practical solution: people would either adopt such a system on their own because they realize the superiority of it; or, it would be imposed via force much as current laws are. This would have to include using force of some kind to stop those who want to expand the scope of the laws to things like victimless crimes, etc.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

MMMark — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:11:19 GMT

Wed. 10/05/19 10:10 EDT
.post #94

bloomj31:
Again, I will say this for what seems like the thousandth time. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power. It doesn't have to be morally justified or logically justified, it simply has to be enforced. If the government has the power to enforce this law, it can do it.

Whether or not you think punishing jaywalking is moral or logically justifiable is totally irrelevant. Whether you think this law is morally or logically justifiable is irrelevant. The only relevant question is: does the government have the power to enforce this law? I think they do.

bloomj31:
This is not might makes right. This is might makes possible. This is might precedes questions of right or wrong.

Without might, law is not possible. Might is a precondition for law. Without might, there can be no law.

Just because people think that the law has something to with right and wrong doesn't mean it does. People can think any law is either morally just or morally unjust, but without the power to enforce the law, it doesn't matter what they think it is, it's not a law. And lawmen can think their acts are morally justified, but that's irrelevant. If they didn't have the might to enforce the law, it wouldn't matter what their values were.

For instance, you could pass a law yourself right now but if you lack the might to uphold it, it won't be a law. Conversely, if our government passes a law and can enforce it, it's a law whether you think it's right or wrong.

People can certainly pass laws that are consistent with their values, but the law itself has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with might. Might cannot make things right or wrong, it can simply make them so. People can inject their own set of moral values into any set of laws and declare them either just or unjust but the actual mechanism of law has nothing to do with right and wrong.

We must separate the values inserted into laws by people from the actual functional mechanism behind law, which is the use of force to uphold rules. We must also separate ourselves from the idea that laws require moral and/or logical justification. They do not. Laws simply require that someone has the power to enforce them.

It seems to me that morality, or at least, the popular perception of moral justification, must come first; this is why the state supplements its gun power with propaganda, including the delusion that "democracy=freedom." When the propaganda fails, so does the state's ability to enforce the law. As easy examples, drug and alcohol prohibition laws have failed, as have copyright and prostitution laws. The state certainly has the guns and the prisons, but there has been and is mass disobedience (or at least, non-compliance), because the laws are popularly perceived to be immoral.

Re: Sex Offenders Get Life in Prison, Even after their sentence ends.

Sieben — Wed, 19 May 2010 14:45:31 GMT

I'm sorry. Do you not know why its important to discuss the the overall disutility of particular laws? Why its important to be able to explain how anarcho capitalist law will work to the benefit of everyone? Sheesh.

Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or "caste" is how to
maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run
problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a
"democratic" government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This
support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive
resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of
some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by
the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out
of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State—the
full-time bureaucracy (and nobility)—must be a rather small minority in the land,
although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population.
Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned
acceptance of the majority of the citizens.[8] ,[9]

Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic
interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of
followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State
apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still
secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support
by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority.
For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their
government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other
conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social
task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed
think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and
disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinionmolders"
in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most
desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals
becomes clear.